Back to Squawk list
  • 33

The Real Cost of Aircraft Ownership

A very blunt report about the cost of buying and owning a "cheap twin." ( 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

ToddBaldwin3 5
The old joke. "How much money does it take to own an airplane?"

"All of it."
your for the cheap twin...they never made one....
ken young 2
Finance new..Large per month payments. Buy used, lower up front costs. Constant maintenance.
One has to decide which works best for them.
N5827P 3
This is typical 1st year or so expenses for a used airplane purchase. It gets much better. Don't be discouraged.
Daniel Baker 2
Not really that bad.
bbabis 1
Thanks Steven, That is good information. I love Apaches and have a little time in many different ones. The Geronimo mods make great planes out of them if you have upgrade plans.
the trouble with a twin apache with 150 horse...that is the same as my warrior...i would'nt want to be in the apache with full fuel and two people...i don't see how it can fly on one they say...that engine brings yuo to the site of the crash....all i'm saying is i would rather have one good engine in my warrior than have two questionable engines in an apache...
bbabis 1
If its the same engine as on your warrior, why is it good on your warrior and questionable on the Apache? A 150hp Apache may not be able to climb under some conditions but the good engine will bring you to the site of a landing much better than no engine on the warrior.
all i'm saying is the apache is almost twice as heavy with full fuel and passangers as my warrior...a lot of twins get into trouble when they lose an engine...i don't have to think if i lose the engine..i just pick a spot straight ahead...
bbabis 1
It doesn't matter how heavy the plane is. Would you rather have 150 horses out there pulling or none? Twins do not get into trouble. Poorly trained pilots or pilots that stop thinking get into trouble and they have no problem crashing singles as well as twins. A good self brief when departing in a heavy Apache would be; This will be a single engine departure, If I loose one off the runway, I'm going to pull the other one back and fly it back to the ground. No rule says you must leave the remaining engine at full power. Once up safely, one engine and the correct configuration can keep a gross weight Apache in the air and help it to a nice big runway instead of a rough field.
Tim Duggan 1
Also, even in a light piston twin, if you take a tip from airliners...

...don't get too slow. For small airplanes of course, it's "Vmc" (Do they still mark the Airspeed Indicators with a blue line?).

Point is, know your airplane well, and also its limitations, and think ahead.
bbabis 1
Spot on Tim. And the blue line is there. A plane is as safe as the pilot. It has very little to do with the aircraft. If its flown right it flys.
Tim Duggan 1
Let's try this again...1st try failed...

True story: Back in my single-pilot FAR Part 135 days, was in a Cessna 404 from KBUR to KLAS (VFR, a Charter) and the left engine showed low oil pressure en-route (after reaching cruise Alt.). Precautionary shut-down, and feather. There really are NO alternates, so I continued toward destination (KLAS). No biggie.

(OK...KDAG....but, well, didn't want to get stuck there. This WAS several decades ago....KEDW? Uh, Uh! Well North by then anyhow. ^_^

Let ATC know (Las Vegas Approach, for TCA -- now "Class B" -- entry), but no need to "Pan, Pan", much less a "MayDay". The C-404 can taxi on one engine too, just like almost any commercial airliner...(Not that I had flown any airliners at that time, this I know now in retrospect).
Tim Fountain 1
Oh dear, someone doesn't know anything about twin flying, especially a low performance twin like the Apache. Bill - go google VMC roll and let us know if you still think that a twin on a single engine will "bring you to the site of the landing" Get that old girl slow and you might as well feather the other engine too.
bbabis 1
This is not about who knows more. What I will say Tim is that you are correct, you may have to reduce power on the good engine to maintain control but you do not need to feather it. VMC roll is not something the plane does on its own but it is something a clueless pilot lets a plane do. I have been up against VMC in many aircraft. The recovery is nothing more than a procedure just like a stall recovery. Altitude and airspeed is your friend. I'm sure Steven has learned all about this and, as long as he maintains currency, is a very happy and safe twin pilot.
Ken Hardy 1
A low performance twin like the Apache is not worth the cost over a high performance single like a 210
bbabis 2
Ken, you forgot to add IMHO to the end of your statement. Many pilots would disagree with you IMHO. In Steven's case, the twin has done precisely what it was supposed to. A 210 is also a great airplane but I have yet to run into anyone who got their MEL in one.
Tim Duggan 2
Ha ha...oh, snap!!

A C210 has its own share of issues. Then, we could discuss an older V-35, A-33, etc, etc...back to twins. The OP of this thread wanted a very cheap twin. He got one. Looks like he went in "Heads Up" as well, knowing the possible pitfalls.

Personally, I'd have opted for a nice Baron. Maybe a C-310 of the vintage variety could be had for a "song" as well. It ultimately depends on one's financial ability.
Tim Fountain 1
Sure, but show me where you can buy a 210 for $15k, or even #36k (first 3 years MX + acq costs) and run it for $100 PH? This is an apples to oranges discussion.
Tim Duggan 1 got me there. Still...I don't know whether I'd prefer to save my pennies up and NOT buy a PA-23-B model Apache, circa 1955 (no offence to the OP).
Michael Wendt 1
I'm curious, how many hours were flown in those 3 years?
Ric Wernicke 0
I often wonder if you're better off choosing a plane with issues that MUST be addressed, or buying one with those items put straight by the seller. I would think the latter. The full price of repairs seldom carries through to the sales price.

A 1955 airframe would worry me. I have flown planes that old, but in 1969, and they felt old then!

Ev Butler 0
I had a similar experience with a 1966 king Air 90A. Fortunately, I required a pre-purchase inspection before paying for it. I got it at a bankruptcy sale for less than $300K. Kept it a couple of years and sold it for $500K. Not everyone is so lucky. The PT-6s were low hours and the airframe inspection was up to date. The only real money problems with it was one burner canister replaced the second year at $80K. Had the engine thoroughly inspected while it was disassembled. Still made a few bucks and had the use of it for two years. At high speed, it used 90 gallons of Jet A per hour. Everything aircraft related is very expensive.

I suggest that a prospective buyer have a pre-purchase inspection and have the ADs up to date before signing the check. No more money pits. I lucked up by more than breaking even with the King Air.
Tim Duggan 0
Erm, did I read this correctly?

"I also took a risk some will call unnecessary, but that's neither here nor there. My first year of ownership she was uninsured. Had I insured right away, it would have been $6,000 for the year for a VFR single engine pilot with less than 150hrs."

Confused...he has his MEL? Or not? Or, is he saying that he had just gotten his Multi, and with low ME time insurance was sky high (pun)?
Steven Thomas 0
I did not have my MEL when I bought it.I got it shortly after.
Tim Duggan 0
Makes used your own airplane for the Rating? True story: My Mom actually learned to fly in an Apache...N1055P. (N-number since re-assigned). I was still young. They sold the Apache and bought a Baron 55 in the 1970s, I took my ATP checkride in that...circa 1978.
Hopefully your mom flew one with 150's a side, I flew a 1957 with those. True Apaches!!!


还没有帐户吗? 现在就注册(免费),设置诸多自定义功能、航班提醒等等!