Operating costs comparison

[Robert C.]

In my ongoing research into whether to buy a Mooney (or alternatively a SR22 or Columbia 350) I've been trolling the web for operating cost info.

 

Finally found the following page, and the findings surprised me a bit: https://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/ACCostSummary.aspx

 

It shows that an Ovation 2 or O3 is about $20/hr more in variable cost that either the C350 or SR22. I didn't subscribe so don't have their view on fixed costs. They assume $7.35 Avgas and $81/hr labor. However, as those base assumptions are the same for each aircraft the operating cost difference shouldn't be affected much by changing the assumptions so even if those assumptions can be argued with the delta should be directionally correct.

 

Also intriguing is that the OpEx of the Commander 114/115 and TB20GT are about the same as a Mooney's. That basically takes annual operating cost of the table as a decision factor in choosing amongst the 3 metal airplanes. However, if the Conklin numbers can be believed it would be about $4k less per year (on 200 hrs) or $2k less on 100hrs) to operate a "plastic plane."

 

For some reason I had been assuming that Mooneys would be a bit cheaper to operate. Modestly better fuel efficiency and none of those expensive Cessna maintenance practices, etc. The Conklin data would suggest otherwise.

 

Do any of you have real world experience with operating cost differences between the 3 platforms? and/or you actual numbers for an O or O2 that you can share?

 

Would love to hear them.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Robert

[VetRepp]

I'd be curious to see what their fixed costs are. I suspect the Mooneys have a lower Fixed costs to operate. I know the SR22 and C350 are more expensive to insure than Mooneys. (Due to a rise of pilot error accidents and more expensive repairs in those plastic planes) Also the Parachutes have a fixed life (I think I heard @10yrs and >$10k). Plus Mooneys O2's are just more fun to fly. So ya gotta subtract the fixed cost of a permanent smile on Mooney owners face.

[carqwik]

My 2 cents...the differences in the operating costs between any high performance four place single piston are probably negligible.  They have the same engines (the Conti 550) so fuel burn will be about the same, oil consumption, etc.  Maintenance will depend on age, shop and shop rate, and skill of the mechanic.  You can go cheap or go to the best (and pay more).  Your choice.  All parts are expensive no matter which brand...

 

Your real decision should be which plane you like the best for your mission.  I wouldn't rely on published cost data to make the decision. 

[larryb]

I don't have an Ovation, so I can't help you there. But I do have a few thoughts on the subject:

 

1)   $2K or $4K is in the noise in the world of aircraft ownership. You can't nail it down that close. You will have expensive years, and you will have more expensive years.

 

2)  Fuel is one of the most expensive components, so if cost is important, look for the best MPG.

 

3)  A lot of the costs are independent of the model airplane. That new GTN750 costs the same in a C150 as it does in a late model Mooney. Same thing for your hanger.

 

4)  You didn't mention your mission requirements. Icing? Turbo? Load? Range?

 

Good luck, Larry

[jetdriven]

Cirrus airplanes have a high cost to insure and some expensive mandatory airworthiness requirements such as that parachute. Another huge expense is the cost of money. Borrowing or leasing a 400-500K airplane is expensive just from the cost of depreciation and interest. All that aside, Mike Busch told us at OSH a couple years ago that a Cirrus basically costs 30% more than a "legacy" retract and by that he clarified "A36".

[Z W]

You're going to have more variation in maintenance costs between individual airplanes than exists between the models.  What I mean by that is a neglected O or O2 is going to cost you far more than a well-maintained Cirrus, but it has nothing to do with the design of the aircraft.

 

I've seen this point debated a lot and nobody ever reaches any real conclusions backed up by math.  Metal airplanes don't seem to break any less than composite ones.  Retractable gear probably adds some maintenance cost, but then again so does a parachute.

 

You may go through your entire ownership without rebuilding a motor, or it might start making metal in your first year.

 

Generally people seem to agree that turbocharged aircraft are more expensive to maintain, but I've found from personal experience a newer turbo cost about the same as an older naturally aspirated, just because the older plane always had some older part wearing out.  Or maybe that was just some bad luck for me (or good luck, that the turbo didn't have more problems?)

 

The Mooney will save you money at the gas pump, probably.  Assuming you run LOP or at some reduced fuel flow.  By the same token, a Mooney at 150 ROP probably gets worse NMPG than a Cirrus or Columbia at 20 LOP.

 

Fly what you like.  Those three aircraft are all very similar.

[Marauder]

Having owned the same Mooney for 23 years, I can tell you there are "good" years and then there are "bad" years when it comes to hourly operational costs. If you are doing this to make sure you can afford it, then my advice is look at just the basic operational costs -- and make sure you factor in reserves for at a minimum, maintenance items. Use this as a basis for the hourly rate and be prepared for big swings upward. If you buy anticipating that the operational numbers they toss around will be absolute, you will be in a state of shock when suddenly you need to lay out thousands to deal with a top overhaul or for an expensive avionics repair bill.

[fantom]

Robert......suggest you 'invest' all that spread sheet estimation time into flying the planes you've already narrowed it down to. Go with the one you enjoy most and can handle best. In the end it will be a much better use of your time and effort. Good luck.

[Robert C.]

Robert......suggest you 'invest' all that spread sheet estimation time into flying the planes you've already narrowed it down to. Go with the one you enjoy most and can handle best. In the end it will be a much better use of your time and effort. Good luck.

That is exactly the conclusion I'm reaching

 

The answers on this thread nicely confirm it too.

 

Thanks everyone.

 

Robert

[triple8s]

If Im not mistaken the 20 and the 22 have airframe service life numbers and after that they are yard ornaments. They have an expensive parachute life cycle too, No Thank You I'll have a Mooney Please.

 

http://www.cirruspilots.org/forums/t/31830.aspx

[MB65E]

Well it's now $13k every 10 years on the late model sr22s chute. The Cirrius airframe is great and maintenance free mostly. I wish the tail was carbon, but the spar is. Data shows the NA SR22 will out perform the sr22 turbo up to 10k feet, then the turbo has the advantage. It's impossible for many to justify the new price of $730k for the Sr22 NA or $830 for the turbo. Some are considering the chute as a second engine in terms of safety. I can agree to an extent. However, loose an engine at the wrong time or pull the chute at the wrong time, nothing will get you home other than good pilotage, lots of luck, and faith. If you own any mooney already, I don't see the point. You could own 2-3 really nice 4 banger Moonies for the cost of an early sr22.

I'm just rambling,

Good luck and fly safe.

[carusoam]

I believe the same IO550 and TNIO550 are used in the SR22 fleet as they are in Ovations, Eagles and Acclaims.

Ours are faster than theirs are...... (use your best sing song voice when reading this out loud)

The parachute just doesn't work at traffic pattern altitudes where most people would need it... Making it a very expensive option. Still would work well for non-flying co-pilots during pilot incapacitation ops...

Best regards,

-a-

[WardHolbrook]

[WardHolbrook]

My 2 cents...the differences in the operating costs between any high performance four place single piston are probably negligible.  They have the same engines (the Conti 550) so fuel burn will be about the same, oil consumption, etc.  Maintenance will depend on age, shop and shop rate, and skill of the mechanic.  You can go cheap or go to the best (and pay more).  Your choice.  All parts are expensive no matter which brand...

 

Your real decision should be which plane you like the best for your mission.  I wouldn't rely on published cost data to make the decision. 

Exactly, there can also be significant differences between specific examples of the same make and model. In other words, if you polled 5 owners of any given make and model about their direct and indirect operating costs you're very likely to have a lot more than $20 variation between them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the delta was a lot higher. Still, Conklin & De Decker and other similar comparisons are fun to play with, but there's enough "slop" in them to limit their usefulness to "entertainment purposes" only, While we're at it, you need more than 5 to 10 knots difference in speed for there to be a meaningful time difference on any given trip.Remember all airplanes are "flying compromises" and that there's no such thing as the perfect airplane. 

[Oscar Avalle]

I just looked up the costs for an M20C... US$ 190 variable costs... I don't know, sounds high to me.