I will start this by saying, I could not decided between Ownership board or here in Aircraft Types. So we can move this if needed.

I am in full research mode looking for the golden ticket (perfect plane on a budget). Heck, there are a lot of great choices.

I have always wanted a quality built experimental for many reasons : cheaper avionics, newer technology, cheaper engines, etc. No I want have the repair certificate as I dont have the time to build right now. IN todays market experimental (Glastars, Rans, Just Aircraft, Wag, Murphy, Zenith to name a few I look at) are listed for more $$ over say 182 straight tails.

Here is the question: Would a new perspective owner be better off in the long run to pay more upfront in acquisition cost of an experimental than a cheaper certified from the idea that a newer well built experimental will have less maintenance/issues? It seems my friends/etc with older planes always has something to fix. Paying a couple hundred more per month in loan (not going into the discussion of financing a plane) would be worth it for me if the operating costs are less.

~Travis

IF you trust the builder, experimental is great. The problem is, I have met folks who built their own plane, but I wouldn't let them change the oil in my truck.

I've got the popcorn and a comfy seat. Let's see if we can beat this dead horse a bit more.
What I get from the numerous other threads on the issue is...... it depends on the plane, your mission, your budget, and how much your AP/IA charges.
Plenty of great old planes out there but you have to trust the logs and 30 to 60 years of maintenance.
Plenty of great AB/EXP planes out there but you have to trust the builder.

Looking for the perfect airplane on a budget is science, deciding you have figured out which one it is, is religion. It's out there, (as is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Batman and the super hot man loving lesbian), you just have to keep looking, and don't stop believing! Or, you could flip a coin, start flying, and enjoy the advantages of your choice and deal with the disadvantages. I recently sold a nice 182 and bought a new Rans S7. They were both expensive up front but the Rans was a lot less, but Im like you in that I prefer to get the pain out of the way with the up front cost and I REALLY am enjoying the low operating costs. The 182 was really nice to get somewhere like LA or Portland fast and comfortably, I could go IFR, carry everything I owned, stretch out my legs, eat my lunch, play with my ipad, post inspirational quotes on FaceBook®, etc. But then when I got there it wasn't as much fun to fly around in, and I didn't have my 60hp turbocharged PowerTow. And it was like $400 in avgas to get there. I realized I don't really need to get to LA in 2.5 hours for a meeting, (I don't even have a job), plus a few other things like worries over my medical, and mainly that I really only fly for fun so it seemed like the Rans made more sense for me. It is way more fun to fly around in, explore little strips, (and occasionally non-strips), and burn 5 or less gallons per hour! Ive had the S7 three and a half months, Ive flown it 103 hours and have no regrets, I love it! Still miss the 182 sometimes. Good luck, enjoy your choice, even if it's to just continue looking and trying to choose!

S-12Flyer wrote:I've got the popcorn and a comfy seat. Let's see if we can beat this dead horse a bit more.
What I get from the numerous other threads on the issue is...... it depends on the plane, your mission, your budget, and how much your AP/IA charges.
Plenty of great old planes out there but you have to trust the logs and 30 to 60 years of maintenance.
Plenty of great AB/EXP planes out there but you have to trust the builder.

Sorry, didn't realize this is a dead horse -- looked/searched but never really found conversation about experimental vs certified.

This is not about the Mission -- this is about 2 planes that fit the same mission. Will operational cost be that much lower on a newer experimental (of course factoring in builder/etc). Comparing 2 apples 1 experimental 1 certified -- is the cost of operation reduced enough to make up for the increase in upfront price.

~Travis

S7Paco wrote:Looking for the perfect airplane on a budget is science, deciding you have figured out which one it is, is religion. It's out there, (as is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Batman and the super hot man loving lesbian), you just have to keep looking, and don't stop believing! Or, you could flip a coin, start flying, and enjoy the advantages of your choice and deal with the disadvantages. I recently sold a nice 182 and bought a new Rans S7.

Yeah, pretty damn close to thinking its about flipping a coin. Rans S7 is a fun fun plane to fly!

About anything with a 912s is pretty eazy to get below 4 gph, with a little work below 3! Auto gas...... you won't be getting anywhere but you'll be in the air!

On the other hand: I saw a clean 152 today, for 5500.00 for a 1/4 ownership, hard to beat that dollar wise.

S-12Flyer wrote:Plenty of great old planes out there but you have to trust the logs and 30 to 60 years of maintenance.
Plenty of great AB/EXP planes out there but you have to trust the builder.

Both are human and will make mistakes. Logs are no guarantee as S-12 says.

Travis, - I was recently in the same position. I went Experimental, here are some deciding factors for me, I will spare you the "joys of building" lines as I see you aren't interested:

Upsides:
Increased flexibility, I can get maintenance certs, change most anything, etc. as I see fit
Newer aeroplane with fewer demons rusting / cracking out of sight
While being new makes them more expensive up front, you reclaim those dollars over time with savings vs. certified(avionics, engines, maintenance) at your discretion

Downsides:
Cannot be used for "hire and reward" to offset costs (but who wants some trainee using your plane anyway??)
That's all I can think of

For me its a heavy-sided coin to flip!

Battson wrote:

S-12Flyer wrote:Plenty of great old planes out there but you have to trust the logs and 30 to 60 years of maintenance.
Plenty of great AB/EXP planes out there but you have to trust the builder.

Both are human and will make mistakes. Logs are no guarantee as S-12 says.

Travis, - I was recently in the same position. I went Experimental, here are some deciding factors for me, I will spare you the "joys of building" lines as I see you aren't interested:

Upsides:
Increased flexibility, I can get maintenance certs, change most anything, etc. as I see fit
Newer aeroplane with fewer demons rusting / cracking out of sight
While being new makes them more expensive up front, you reclaim those dollars over time with savings vs. certified(avionics, engines, maintenance) at your discretion

Downsides:
Cannot be used for "hire and reward" to offset costs (but who wants some trainee using your plane anyway??)
That's all I can think of

For me its a heavy-sided coin to flip!

Thanks! -- I will build eventually, just not in the card for time commitment now. I want to fly around NZ -- I have spent a bunch of time down there.

Cheers,
Travis

Beware of the 3-4 gph quotes some Rotax owners make. At 100 hp it burns 7.2 gph. Fuel burn is pretty much proportional to hp output, so 3.5 gph is only 50 hp. You don't get something for nothing.

tom

Savannah-Tom wrote:Beware of the 3-4 gph quotes some Rotax owners make. At 100 hp it burns 7.2 gph. Fuel burn is pretty much proportional to hp output, so 3.5 gph is only 50 hp. You don't get something for nothing.

tom

920 hours now, and less then 4 gph is what I have logged 95% of the time, and I'm anal about keeping track. Usually 3.2 to 3.4 and usually less then 5K rpm, and 50 hp is plenty of power once in the air. So yeah, throttled back, I'm not in a hurry though I do get around.

29singlespeed wrote:Comparing 2 apples 1 experimental 1 certified -- is the cost of operation reduced enough to make up for the increase in upfront price.

I'd say definitely yes, but I don't know what your "numbers" are.
Certified is a very expensive way to own/operate an airplane. No question about that.
As has been said several times, you need to be SURE the builder is not a "good enough" guy.
Learn about the "idiosyncrasies" of the type you're gonna buy, and ask specific questions.
Be honest in your assesment of your abilities to wrench your plane.
Of course, there are always AMEs out there if you need 'em!

Another option to consider is the purchase of a "cheaper certified airplane" with the ability to go experimental as time and money permit. The Piper shortwings are famous for this and allow a ton of options for improvements/changes including some that would make it experimental. There is also a lot you can do with them while keeping it certified (i.e. changing the 0-235 for a 0-320 in the pa-16, or installing a second wing tank, etc.). They are fairly easy to maintain and there is a ton of support for them on the shortwing Piper forums and you can get into a decent bird for $25K or less. Fun to fly as they are, and fun to modify as you see fit!

CW

clippwagon wrote:Another option to consider is the purchase of a "cheaper certified airplane" with the ability to go experimental as time and money permit. The Piper shortwings are famous for this and allow a ton of options for improvements/changes including some that would make it experimental. There is also a lot you can do with them while keeping it certified (i.e. changing the 0-235 for a 0-320 in the pa-16, or installing a second wing tank, etc.). They are fairly easy to maintain and there is a ton of support for them on the shortwing Piper forums and you can get into a decent bird for $25K or less. Fun to fly as they are, and fun to modify as you see fit!

CW

Whats it take to change one to experimental?

Savannah-Tom wrote:Beware of the 3-4 gph quotes some Rotax owners make. At 100 hp it burns 7.2 gph. Fuel burn is pretty much proportional to hp output, so 3.5 gph is only 50 hp. You don't get something for nothing.

tom

I only have 70 hours on mine but I get from 2.5 to 4.5GPH. And I am flying 6000 ft and above. 2.7 hours today at 90mph / 9 to 10 thousand feet and used 7 1/2 gals. Real world numbers repeated every flight. Even at max cruise rpm I still get 5 gph and a cruise speed around 110 to 115. I don't burn 7.2 gph at gross in a steep climb in the summer. There are several Rotax LSA aircraft at my airport and not one of them burns 7.2.
Did not buy it for cross country. And I can do my own annuals.
The older certified engines are 50 year old technology. Solid and dependable but low efficiency. Like a Harley v-twin. (OK they aren't so dependable). The Rotax is more like a Ducati. Same basic engine but designed in this millennium.
Not really something for nothing.

29singlespeed wrote:

clippwagon wrote:Another option to consider is the purchase of a "cheaper certified airplane" with the ability to go experimental as time and money permit. The Piper shortwings are famous for this and allow a ton of options for improvements/changes including some that would make it experimental. There is also a lot you can do with them while keeping it certified (i.e. changing the 0-235 for a 0-320 in the pa-16, or installing a second wing tank, etc.). They are fairly easy to maintain and there is a ton of support for them on the shortwing Piper forums and you can get into a decent bird for $25K or less. Fun to fly as they are, and fun to modify as you see fit!

CW

Whats it take to change one to experimental?

Good question. I'm not familiar with the process though I know it's done. I'm sure someone may be able to add some insight. However, there really is a lot that can be done (by you with an A&P ready to sign you off) while remaining certified. A few more examples are: bush wheels, wing tip mods, landing gear mods (?), climb prop, and as mentioned above a right side fuel tank and bigger engine. I believe you enter into the experimental world when you do things like add pa-18 wings and stretch the body etc.

That being said, the pa-16 I fly is close to stock and very capable and a lot of fun. I cleaned up and re-covered the wings last year in my shop at home and went through the whole plane nose to tail giving me a good understanding of how simple the thing really is. The last annual was just over $300 as an owner assist and took about a day to comlpete. It's a great fun way to get in the air on a budget and worry about the other stuff as you can. Maybe when the engine is run out I can consider an o-320???...Then again, maybe I won't want to!

CW

clippwagon wrote:

29singlespeed wrote:

clippwagon wrote:Another option to consider is the purchase of a "cheaper certified airplane" with the ability to go experimental as time and money permit. The Piper shortwings are famous for this and allow a ton of options for improvements/changes including some that would make it experimental. There is also a lot you can do with them while keeping it certified (i.e. changing the 0-235 for a 0-320 in the pa-16, or installing a second wing tank, etc.). They are fairly easy to maintain and there is a ton of support for them on the shortwing Piper forums and you can get into a decent bird for $25K or less. Fun to fly as they are, and fun to modify as you see fit!

CW

Whats it take to change one to experimental?

Good question. I'm not familiar with the process though I know it's done. I'm sure someone may be able to add some insight. However, there really is a lot that can be done (by you with an A&P ready to sign you off) while remaining certified. A few more examples are: bush wheels, wing tip mods, landing gear mods (?), climb prop, and as mentioned above a right side fuel tank and bigger engine. I believe you enter into the experimental world when you do things like add pa-18 wings and stretch the body etc.

That being said, the pa-16 I fly is close to stock and very capable and a lot of fun. I cleaned up and re-covered the wings last year in my shop at home and went through the whole plane nose to tail giving me a good understanding of how simple the thing really is. The last annual was just over $300 as an owner assist and took about a day to comlpete. It's a great fun way to get in the air on a budget and worry about the other stuff as you can. Maybe when the engine is run out I can consider an o-320???...Then again, maybe I won't want to!

CW

No, you CANNOT simply take a certified airplane and turn it into an Experimental/Amateur Built airplane with a few modifications (or even with a BUNCH of modifications). Don't believe me? Check with EAA on that.

This was done years ago in some cases, but the FAA slammed the door shut FIRMLY on this sort of thing, based partly on the 51% rule.

Now, you CAN convert a certified airplane to Experimental/Exhibition category, but that means every year you have to ask/tell the FAA which "exhibitions" you're going to appear at this year, and virtually all other flying is restricted to local area proficiency. Look on Barnstormers--there's a Cessna 170 with a turbocharger on there in this category that the guy's been trying to unload for months.....and it probably won't happen. Nobody wants an airplane in that category, unless its purely an airshow performer or maybe a warbird.

There seems to be a number of folks out there who assume you can convert a certified airplane to an Exp/AB airplane, but it's simply not possible these days.

And, if you're buying an EXP/AB airplane, bear in mind that every part may in fact be new, but some of those parts may in fact be hardware store stuff......and that may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the role of that hardware store stuff. Problem is, how do you SEE that stuff during a pre-buy?

Buying a flying Experimental Amateur Built airplane is a SERIOUS exercise in trusting your fellow man to have done things right. Many have, and there are some superb examples out there.

There is some real junk and a lot of "better ideas" as well.

It can be done, but be careful. Of course, somewhat the same goes for certified aircraft as well.....

MTV

mtv wrote:Buying a flying Experimental Amateur Built airplane is a SERIOUS exercise in trusting your fellow man to have done things right. Many have, and there are some superb examples out there.

There is some real junk and a lot of "better ideas" as well.

It can be done, but be careful. Of course, somewhat the same goes for certified aircraft as well.....

MTV

Agreed on all of this, I am not here to debate experimental vs certified -- just operating cost.

Appears my question has been answered about operating cost on certified vs. experimental :: As with all aviation it just depends!

Thanks for all the insight!

I know people who tell me they want an exp "so they don't have to pay for an annual every year". Well, unless they built it & have the repairman certificate, they still need an A&P to do a condition inspection. Annual inspections aren't that bad anyway, my last one took less than 4 hours & cost me less than $150. The key is to make it an inspection only by taking care of all the maintenance & squawks ahead of time, & having an IA that lets you be part of the process.
The more important aspects of experiemental vs certificated are doing mods (little to no paperwork req'd for exp), and little to no fixing & replacing old/worn-out/broken stuff on a (newer) homebuilt. The down side of buying an already-built exp from someone else is (lke MTV pointed out) trusting in your fellow men who built/modified/maintained it before you came along. I've seen guys with experimental projects who I wouldn't trust to do an oil change, let alone build a whole airplane (kit or not!).

Thanks for the clarification MTV. I didn't realize that converting to experimental meant you also would be operating in the exhibition category. Probably not the best option. There is still so much that can be done with the shortwings while remaining certified that it makes them an attractive and affodable option for a lot of people.

I echo the sentiments above regarding the need to have a lot of trust in the builder if you go the experimental route.

CW