CMartin

Costs comparison on aircrafts

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, steingar said:

I've said this before, but it bear repeating.  The short body Mooneys are the biggest bang for your buck in all of GA.  Even the experimental have trouble beating them for the cost. Nothing goes as fast or hauls as much on that kind of money.

I agree- if you buy it right with a good PPI by an expert.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

3 hours ago, 0TreeLemur said:

I agree- if you buy it right with a good PPI by an expert.

Even then there are no guarantees.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

Even then there are no guarantees.

True dat.  :)  I'm coming up on 2 years of ownership on mine and even with the PPI, it has cost me about $12k a year so far. 

Don't take that as a common case. I should clarify that some were expected, some were not, and some were upgrades in lieu of repair (if you have to fix it, why not upgrade instead of replace like for like, right?).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 0TreeLemur said:

I agree- if you buy it right with a good PPI by an expert.

 

1 hour ago, KLRDMD said:

Even then there are no guarantees.

Find me an aircraft for which this isn't true.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I just drove away in a new to me '06 4Runner. I'm thinking to myself, I hope this turns out to be a good vehicle. But then compared to the risk taken on airplanes, $8K is a pretty small pot to gamble.

There are no guarantees... with anything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bought 68’ M20C in a May 2011, flew just over 1500 hours and would still own if not for a gear up landing (not pilot error, right main gear door caught on gear leg rivet). 

Bought 67’ M20F in Sep 2018 and have over 220 hours on it. We are constantly amazed at what a difference in comfort and performance the mid body and 20 additional HP provides.

Another plus is the low insurance costs. I also like the manual gear, flaps, and light weight of the mid 60s Mooneys. My wife loves the strength of the airframe. 

We test flew several vintage Bonanzas and Debonairs, a couple of Bellanca Vikings, as well as flew nearly 100 hours in Cherokee 235s. Bottom line; the Mooney is the best choice for us. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, smccray said:

I wouldn't expect much of a difference in the annual cost- call a couple shops and check on the fixed cost of the annual.  It'll be pretty close.  Make sure scope of work is the same- I've seen some shops charge extra for the oil change whereas some include it in the fixed price.   

The Mooney is a slightly more efficient airframe.  Fuel cost per mile is going to be a little less in the Mooney compared to the Beech but it's a rounding error.  If you compare a 285HP+ Beech with a 200HP Mooney, the Mooney will look even better, but the a significant portion of that benefit comparison comes from flying a little slower (more efficiently).

I have checked with five different shops, some do both some do not service Mooney? Based on a 24 labor hour annual, and averaging the totals, there is less than a $100 difference in the base costs for the annuals. I was really surprised to see that for some reason! I would think the Bonanza would have been much higher with the extra cylinders and such? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, steingar said:

I've said this before, but it bear repeating.  The short body Mooneys are the biggest bang for your buck in all of GA.  Even the experimental have trouble beating them for the cost. Nothing goes as fast or hauls as much on that kind of money.

Which models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Short bodies... M20B,C,D...

-a-

And E...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul!

Bob’s going to be disappointed with my alphabet skills...  :)

The M20E is the most talented of the short bodies... and makes a great retirement plane.

Fantastic bang for the buck, and great LOP efficiency....

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CMartin said:

I have checked with five different shops, some do both some do not service Mooney? Based on a 24 labor hour annual, and averaging the totals, there is less than a $100 difference in the base costs for the annuals. I was really surprised to see that for some reason! I would think the Bonanza would have been much higher with the extra cylinders and such? 

There's more to break with the bigger engine.  The cost to change out all the cylinders will be higher on the Beech as a result compared to a 4 cylinder Lycoming, but likely about the same as a K model Mooney.  Other than the engine, the systems are all very similar between the planes.  Start adding turbos, oxygen, speed breaks... keep going down the list.  It all costs money to maintain.  For the base airframe, they're about the same.  Small differences in fixed costs.  Different gotchas on maintenance.

Edited to add:

This is part of the challenge when it comes to looking at cost.  Hangar cost is the same.  Base maintenance is the same, or driven by systems on the plane.  Insurance is a function of hull value- say 1% of the difference in the value.

So.. you have an NA Bonanza compared to NA Mooney.  The primary driver of the cost difference is in the fuel burn, which is primarily a function of speed (driven by horsepower).  Want to go faster?  burn more fuel.  Want to save money on fuel?  slow down.  So you have a J model Mooney compared to a C33 with an IO470K (225HP engine).  The performance is almost the same.  The cost is almost the same.  Pick your plane.  Want to go faster? buy an ovation or a bonanza with an IO520 or an IO550.  Carrying cost isn't that different, but fuel burn goes up.

With that in mind... that's part of the reason (in my mind) why people with higher budgets choose planes with bigger engines.  

Edited by smccray
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, smccray said:

There's more to break with the bigger engine.  The cost to change out all the cylinders will be higher on the Beech as a result compared to a 4 cylinder Lycoming, but likely about the same as a K model Mooney.  Other than the engine, the systems are all very similar between the planes.  Start adding turbos, oxygen, speed breaks... keep going down the list.  It all costs money to maintain.  For the base airframe, they're about the same.  Small differences in fixed costs.  Different gotchas on maintenance.

Edited to add:

This is part of the challenge when it comes to looking at cost.  Hangar cost is the same.  Base maintenance is the same, or driven by systems on the plane.  Insurance is a function of hull value- say 1% of the difference in the value.

So.. you have an NA Bonanza compared to NA Mooney.  The primary driver of the cost difference is in the fuel burn, which is primarily a function of speed (driven by horsepower).  Want to go faster?  burn more fuel.  Want to save money on fuel?  slow down.  So you have a J model Mooney compared to a C33 with an IO470K (225HP engine).  The performance is almost the same.  The cost is almost the same.  Pick your plane.  Want to go faster? buy an ovation or a bonanza with an IO520 or an IO550.  Carrying cost isn't that different, but fuel burn goes up.

With that in mind... that's part of the reason (in my mind) why people with higher budgets choose planes with bigger engines.  

My budget is in the range of 20-25k annually flying around 75 hours per year. Hanger here rents for 1500 year. Estimating annuals of 3-5k (high I hope), five dollar fuel @ 75 hours per year upwards of 6k and insurance for a low timer 3k?. Hopefully my numbers are high as most of them are Bonanza numbers assuming the Mooney comes in more efficient dropping the fuel and insurance. If I go with a Bo, looking at the A36 or F33 (as stated before, want a straight tail).  This budget does not include financing of plane. Thanks for your response!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CMartin said:

My budget is in the range of 20-25k annually flying around 75 hours per year. Hanger here rents for 1500 year. Estimating annuals of 3-5k (high I hope), five dollar fuel @ 75 hours per year upwards of 6k and insurance for a low timer 3k?. Hopefully my numbers are high as most of them are Bonanza numbers assuming the Mooney comes in more efficient dropping the fuel and insurance. If I go with a Bo, looking at the A36 or F33 (as stated before, want a straight tail).  This budget does not include financing of plane. Thanks for your response!

Your insurance number will depend more on aircraft value, but I like that budget number. @Parker_Woodruff can tell you more than I can. 

Annual may be 3-5k but you will have years where the total maintenance cost is north of that number. Inspection will be $2k.  Oil changes are $3-400 apiece. Then you have to pay for things that break.  You have to be ready for a big expense, but we all cross our fingers it doesn’t happen.  If you have time to turn wrenches or do some basic things yourself you can reduce the cost.

$25k should be very doable.  Jump in- the water is fantastic!  

PS- budget $5-10k for the buying process. Pre-buys, travel, training... it all adds up. It’s worth it- economics are different in aviation- $1000 in the real world is significant (at least to me).  $1000 for something airplane related... that’s a different kind of math.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, smccray said:

It’s worth it- economics are different in aviation- $1000 in the real world is significant (at least to me).

$1000 for something airplane related... that’s a different kind of math.

I think that's the BEST aviation finances comment EVER!

A first time owner really needs to take that to heart...if you are going to flinch at dropping a grand now and again...you are NOT ready for ownership.

Edited by MikeOH
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, smccray said:

So.. you have an NA Bonanza compared to NA Mooney.  The primary driver of the cost difference is in the fuel burn, which is primarily a function of speed (driven by horsepower).  Want to go faster?  burn more fuel.  Want to save money on fuel?  slow down.  So you have a J model Mooney compared to a C33 with an IO470K (225HP engine).  The performance is almost the same.  The cost is almost the same.  Pick your plane.  Want to go faster? buy an ovation or a bonanza with an IO520 or an IO550.  Carrying cost isn't that different, but fuel burn goes up. With that in mind... that's part of the reason (in my mind) why people with higher budgets choose planes with bigger engines.  

There is also the greater useful load in the Bonanza. If not for that I would still be in a Mooney. I miss my 231.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

I think that's the BEST aviation finances comment EVER!

A first time owner really needs to take that to heart...if you are going to flinch at dropping a grand now and again...you are NOT ready for ownership.

For those of us who are in the plane ownership world, that makes excellent sense. For someone considering buying, that is probably pretty scary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, smccray said:

There's more to break with the bigger engine.  The cost to change out all the cylinders will be higher on the Beech as a result compared to a 4 cylinder Lycoming.

Jewell Aviation overhaul numbers:  http://www.jewellaviation.com/pdf/Price-Sheet-2019-Engines.pdf

Lycoming IO-360 - $13,500

Continental IO-520 - $18,500

Add R&R to both, they have the same accessories to overhaul, similar prop, etc. $2.50/hour difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

There is also the greater useful load in the Bonanza. If not for that I would still be in a Mooney. I miss my 231.

Doc- sounds like you need to take a trip to Oklahoma: https://taturbo.com/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, smccray said:

Doc- sounds like you need to take a trip to Oklahoma: https://taturbo.com/

Nope. The extra 75HP in the Bonanza is just perfect. I'm right in the middle of needing a turbo and not. I fly 8,000-12,000 ft regularly. I've decided more normally aspirated HP is most ideal for my needs right now. A 300/310 HP normally aspirated Mooney would work just fine if it has over 1,100 lb useful load. Those exist, but are very rare. On the other hand, that's easy to find in a Bonanza.

Besides, there is no sexier airplane made than a V-Tail Bonanza :D

Edited by KLRDMD
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken,

Simple solution... Screamin’ Eagle.  310hp, TopProp, 1100 UL, Naturally Aspirated...

The Standing O’s UL is slightly less than 1100LBs...

One flight is all it takes....

 

How about a pressurized turbine? Have you seen Tom’s Lancair IVPT?  :)

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Simple solution... Screamin’ Eagle.  310hp, TopProp, 1100 UL, Naturally Aspirated... The Standing O’s UL is slightly less than 1100LBs... One flight is all it takes....How about a pressurized turbine? Have you seen Tom’s Lancair IVPT?  :)

I've flown Ovations and instructed in them. Not many have the useful load I need and those that do are at least twice and maybe three times the capital expenditure as a similar performing Bonanza.

Pressurization is a game changer. I had a pressurized twin and have access to a P210 any time I want it and am on the insurance. But for the vast majority of my flights, it simply is not needed today. And again, we have that pesky up front cost.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, KLRDMD said:

There is also the greater useful load in the Bonanza. If not for that I would still be in a Mooney. I miss my 231.

Would you mind giving specifics?  I looked at BO's as well as Moonies and the difference didnt seem so great.

What is your UL?

Fuel capacity?

FF UL ?

Full fuel range ?

 

For my Rocket

UL= 1050 lbs

Fuel cap= 75 gal

FF UL = 600 lbs

Full fuel rang = ~ 800 miles  (max econ , FL190, 190 knots)

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Austintatious said:

Would you mind giving specifics?  I looked at BO's as well as Moonies and the difference didnt seem so great.

What is your UL?

Fuel capacity?

FF UL ?

Full fuel range ?

 

For my Rocket

UL= 1050 lbs

Fuel cap= 75 gal

FF UL = 600 lbs

Full fuel rang = ~ 800 miles  (max econ , FL190, 190 knots)

 

 

The Bonanza numbers are more complex due to CG issues.

Later V-tails have 80 gallon tanks (74 gal usable).  15 or 20 gallon tip tanks (adding 30-40 gallons total) are common modifications.  Plane will run 170 ktas+ at 13 GPH- very similar to an ovation.  Useful load is commonly north of 1200 lbs.

The challenge with the V-Tails is aft CG.  Loading the plane with baggage and rear seat passengers adds a lot of weight to the back of the envelop.  As fuel burns, CG moves rearward.  It's very easy to load the plane outside of the CG.  Some planes have 1400lbs useful load, but practically they're closer to 11-1200 in the real world because of where you put the bags.  Adding a turbo normalizer, however, adds 70 lbs to the engine compartment and fixes the CG problem.  That changes it to a 200 knot airplane with the higher fuel burn.  Acquisition cost of a TN V35 and a rocket will be about the same, although the TN V35 would have a 10 year older airframe.

I would bet the rocket is a little faster than the TN V35, but I can't speak from experience.  I know rocket still supports the conversion, but the support from Tornado Alley is probably superior to support from Rocket Engineering should the owner have a problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.