Aircraft Operating Costs, How to determine
Jim Jam
Hi there.
I'm looking at picking up a twin-piston aircraft.
I do not know anything about aircraft ownership.
I'm just wondering how one would go about figuring operating cost.
I know you'll overhaul the engines somewhere around the TBO time. But
beyond that I don't know much. I see all kinds of different overhauls
(top, chrome, etc.?) what do they all mean.
BTIZ
now it's more like.. "cost of fuel per hour times 4"
and the cost of fuel keeps going up...
TZ
"Jim Jam" <j...@jam.com> wrote in message
news:7lbk8vs2btdcip6o7...@4ax.com...
David Megginson
> well.. at one time a simple formula was "cost of fuel per hours
> times 3"
>
> now it's more like.. "cost of fuel per hour times 4"
>
> and the cost of fuel keeps going up...
Here's an easy rule: take twice your initial estimate, then double it.
What I've noticed, though, is that airplane ownership is qualitatively
different -- it is itself another hobby, just like flying itself, and
just as involved and exciting. That's what you pay the extra money
for.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, da...@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/
Paul Missman
Take whatever you make in a year, and multiply by 1.5.
Paul
P.S. Seriously, fuel could run you $5000 a year for 100 hours, an annual
$2000 a year, better put $3000 a year aside for the the overhauls. Then
you need about $1000 a year in general maintainence money, and finally add
on the hanger fees. Insurance may vary greatly, depending on the plane, and
the number of hours you have in that type aircraft.
The heck with the explanation. Just take whatever you make, and multiply by
1.5.
A top overhaul is heads and possibly pistons. A complete overhaul is the
whole engine. Chrome is one type of cylinder head, as opposed to normal or
nitrided steel. The chrome steel heads cost a bit more. The overhauls
usually occur when the engine reaches end of life (TBO), but might occur for
loss of compression that required new heads. An overhaul might also occur
because of a prop strike, if the crank shaft or other components were
damaged.
"Jim Jam" <j...@jam.com> wrote in message
news:7lbk8vs2btdcip6o7...@4ax.com...
>
>
Jim Jam
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 22:10:41 -0500, "Paul Missman" <miss...@cfw.com>
wrote:
Tony Roberts
<j...@jam.com> wrote:
> OK, at what point would a TOH be done?
In my own case , a top overhaul was done at 1150 TBO, because of sticking
valve problems and loss of compression on one cylinder. Note that a TOH
does not extend a TBO - at best it just helps you reach it.
Unless you have a considerable disposable income or a particular rneed for
a twin, I suggest that you start with a single engine aircraft. A twin
does cost more than double the cost of a single to own, operate and
maintain.
--
Tony Roberts (tonyr...@shaw.ca)
PP-ASEL - VFR-OTT
Cessna 172 C-GICE
Dan Thompson
maintain.
Really? Sounds like an old wive's tale. How can that be true, when the
only difference is one extra powerplant? I want to learn.
David Megginson
You have two engines to maintain and overhaul with all their
associated systems, two propellers to maintain and overhaul,
retractable gear (and possibly deicing equipment) to maintain,
etc. etc. You also have a considerably higher fuel burn, and your
insurance company may require quite a bit of annual currency training.
Busy flying schools in competitive markets tend to be pretty good at
pricing their rentals -- too low and they go broke, too high and they
lose business. Here are the wet rental rates from the Ottawa Flying
Club:
Cessna 150: CAD 85.00/hour (USD 55.00/hour)
Cessna 172: CAD 109.00/hour (USD 70.00/hour)
Beech 76 (Duchess): CAD 218/hour (USD 140/hour)
The BE 76 (Duchess) is about as simple a twin as you can get, and is
really useful mainly as a multi-engine trainer -- it cruises at 158
kt, which is slower than many higher-end singles. Most twin owners
would want a little more power and some of the standard twin benefits,
like deicing support.
JerryK
The issue is that twins are more complex than a single. On a twin your
will have to maintain 2 engines and the other systems. Also your
insurance costs, landing fees, etc are all higher.
Jim Jam
Speaking of insurance, can anyone give me some good brokers /
companies in Canada?
David Megginson
> Speaking of insurance, can anyone give me some good brokers /
> companies in Canada?
I'm working with Bill Davidson and his son Laine at National Aviation:
Michael
> > > A twin does cost more than double the cost of a single >to own,
> > > operate and maintain.
> >
> > Really? Sounds like an old wive's tale. How can that be true, when the
> > only difference is one extra powerplant? I want to learn.
Well, it's not a wive's tale at all. A twin that flies a lot faster
than a single, carries more, has more systems, and has a bigger cabin
might actually cost even more than twice. Now if you're talking
single vs. twin with the same speed, payload, cabin room, and
capability - well, then it's an old wive's tale.
David Megginson <da...@megginson.com> wrote
> Busy flying schools in competitive markets tend to be pretty good at
> pricing their rentals -- too low and they go broke, too high and they
> lose business. Here are the wet rental rates from the Ottawa Flying
> Club:
>
> Cessna 150: CAD 85.00/hour (USD 55.00/hour)
> Cessna 172: CAD 109.00/hour (USD 70.00/hour)
> Beech 76 (Duchess): CAD 218/hour (USD 140/hour)
Yes, this is very realistic. An entry level twin DOES cost twice as
much to operate as a simple fixed gear, fixed pitch, low performance
four seat trainer.
> The BE 76 (Duchess) is about as simple a twin as you can get, and is
> really useful mainly as a multi-engine trainer -- it cruises at 158
> kt, which is slower than many higher-end singles.
Yes, but the low speed and load are not the result of simplicity, but
of dumbing down the handling to the point where a 50 hour MEI can
teach in one reasonably safely. The Beech Travel Air offers
substantially better performance on the same engines and operating
cost.
BTW - have you priced renting those higher end singles???
> Most twin owners
> would want a little more power and some of the standard twin benefits,
> like deicing support.
Deicing is hardly standard (and will really cost you), and power is
not the way to buy speed. The BE-76 cruises 158 kts on 180 hp a side
because it is purpose built as a trainer and designed to forgive
sloppy handling on one engine; my PA-30 cruises 175 kts on 160 hp a
side because it is built as a cruiser and won't forgive sloppy handing
on one engine.
Michael
David Megginson
> Yes, but the low speed and load are not the result of simplicity, but
> of dumbing down the handling to the point where a 50 hour MEI can
> teach in one reasonably safely. The Beech Travel Air offers
> substantially better performance on the same engines and operating
> cost.
>
> BTW - have you priced renting those higher end singles???
The highest I can rent locally is a Piper Arrow, for CAD 140.00/hour
(USD 90.00/hour) wet. It's complex, but it's obviously not a high-end
single.
> Deicing is hardly standard (and will really cost you), and power is
> not the way to buy speed. The BE-76 cruises 158 kts on 180 hp a side
> because it is purpose built as a trainer and designed to forgive
> sloppy handling on one engine; my PA-30 cruises 175 kts on 160 hp a
> side because it is built as a cruiser and won't forgive sloppy handing
> on one engine.
What are the aerodynamic tradeoffs a designer makes for a training
twin. Is it simply a matter of a bigger rudder?
Thanks,
Michael
> I do not know anything about aircraft ownership.
Then I would recommend you start by owning something simpler and
cheaper. As a first time owner, you WILL make mistakes and they WILL
cost you.
> I'm just wondering how one would go about figuring operating cost.
>
> I know you'll overhaul the engines somewhere around the TBO time. But
> beyond that I don't know much. I see all kinds of different overhauls
> (top, chrome, etc.?) what do they all mean.
My operating costs for a Twin Comanche run about US $100/hr. This is
based on having lots of time in type and all the ratings (cheap
insurance), doing most of my own maintenance, and flying 200+ hours a
year. Unless you can figure a way to burn autogas, this is the
CHEAPEST certified twin to operate, bar none.
As a first time owner not doing his own maintenance, your costs are
likely to be at least double mine, and that's if you pick up a twin in
good condition that does not need major work. I strongly recommend
you start by owning something simpler and cheaper. You will still
make mistakes, but they won't cost you as much.
If you are dead set on getting a twin anyway, I'll be happy to sell
you mine. Check it out on: www.thisoldairplane.com
Michael
Jim Jam
One of the biggest things in determining cost to run, or which plane
to buy is information that typically can only be found in the POH.
i.e. Fuel burn at different power settings / altitudes, useful load,
time/distance to climb, descend etc.
Are there any good online resources for this information?
David Megginson
> Are there any good online resources for this information?
There are some sites with performance numbers, but the information is
usually incomplete.
The good news is that you can typically pick up an Information Manual
(the non-customized reprint of the POH) for around USD 10.00 on eBay,
or get one new from the manufacturer for around USD 20.00-30.00 (more
for a complex or twin, I'd imagine).
If you're planning on spending so much money on an airplane, it
doesn't hurt to invest a few bucks in a collection of IMs first. You
can always resell the ones you don't need on eBay afterwards.
All the best,
Mike Rapoport
How many people/stuff have to go? What is your tolerance for getting stuck?
How much money do you have to spend on accomplishing these tasks?
Mike
MU-2
"Jim Jam" <j...@jam.com> wrote in message
news:jpcm8vs0fjrt6dlmt...@4ax.com...
Michael
> twin. Is it simply a matter of a bigger rudder?
No, and in fact bigger rudder is the least of it.
Big wing for low wingloading and low stall speed, so nothing happens
very fast (including cruise).
Thick, turbulent flow airfoil for a very slow onset of stall.
Remember that for most modern twins, Vmc isn't the real problem - it's
asymmetric stall.
Lots of dihedral for roll stability, so instrument flying is easy.
Lots of washout to keep the ailerons effective deep into the stall.
Counter-rotating engines to keep Vmc very low and eliminate the
presence of a critical engine.
Michael
David Megginson
> Big wing for low wingloading and low stall speed, so nothing happens
> very fast (including cruise).
>
> Thick, turbulent flow airfoil for a very slow onset of stall.
> Remember that for most modern twins, Vmc isn't the real problem - it's
> asymmetric stall.
>
> Lots of dihedral for roll stability, so instrument flying is easy.
>
> Lots of washout to keep the ailerons effective deep into the stall.
>
> Counter-rotating engines to keep Vmc very low and eliminate the
> presence of a critical engine.
Thanks -- that's a good summary. Now, which of these impose the major
performance penalty on cruise speed? Clearly the big, thick wing will
add more drag. Dihedral will affect responsiveness, but will it
affect drag as well? Does washout have a big effect on drag?
All the best,
Dan Thompson
say, a B36 Bonanza to a Baron, or 4 seater Bonanza to a Duchess, or a Turbo
Saratoga to a Seneca. Then you will see whether the second power plant
comes anywhere close to costing "more than double" (your words) the cost of
the single. Comparing a 172 to a Duchess is like comparing chicken shit and
chicken salad.
"David Megginson" <da...@megginson.com> wrote in message
news:87smt1y...@megginson.com...
David Megginson
> Why don't you try comparing high end singles to their closely
> related twins, say, a B36 Bonanza to a Baron, or 4 seater Bonanza to
> a Duchess, or a Turbo Saratoga to a Seneca. Then you will see
> whether the second power plant comes anywhere close to costing "more
> than double" (your words) the cost of the single.
Not my words -- double-check the nesting depth of the quotation:
> > > > A twin does cost more than double the cost of a single >to own,
> > > > operate and maintain.
What twin can we compare to typical entry-level singles, like a
Warrior/Archer/Skyhawk/Skylane?
I don't have personal experience with Bo's, but from what I can find
online with a quick Google search, a BE36 Bonanza burns about 14 gph,
while a Baron burns around 30 gph. A Turbo Saratoga burns up to 16
gph, while a Seneca burns around 28 gph. You also have two engines to
overhaul with the twin, though they might be a little smaller than the
engine on the high-performance single (fewer cylinders=lower cost per
engine). I don't know what the insurance differences are.
Also two fuel pumps, two vacuum pumps, two alternators, two sets of
hoses, two oil systems ...
That said, please don't assume I'm in the anti-twin camp. If my
consulting business is ever doing well enough (and demanding enough
travel) to justify the cost, I'd love to fly a twin. In the meantime,
I am trying to remind myself that even if I buy an old used twin for
USD 100K or less, I'm still flying a million-dollar airplane as far as
maintenance costs go.
Kyler Laird
>>A twin does cost more than double the cost of a single >to own, operate and
>maintain.
>Really? Sounds like an old wive's tale.
I appreciate your skepticism.
>How can that be true, when the
>only difference is one extra powerplant? I want to learn.
Find a single-engine owner who has spent over $6K to fix
his heater (and still doesn't have a working heater) then
let's talk.
--kyler (fresh out of annual and two days of flying...)
Roger Halstead
wrote:
>Why don't you try comparing high end singles to their closely related twins,
>say, a B36 Bonanza to a Baron, or 4 seater Bonanza to a Duchess, or a Turbo
I'd compare the Bonanza (five or 6 seat, only the old ones had 4) to
the Baron 55 series and some of them are real hot rods. Especially the
56.
Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
Dan Thompson
nuances of Beech models. I have owned both a Turbo Saratoga and a Senceca
II, and can state with knowledge that the twin only cost a fraction more
than the single. Just like one would expect it would. After all, there are
redundant systems to maintain, which is why I got a twin in the first place
(after an engine failure in the Saratoga).
"Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net> wrote in message
news:0vrn8vcjrklj8hlbf...@4ax.com...
Michael
> performance penalty on cruise speed?
Everything but the counter-rotating engines - those just add
maintenance costs by making you dependent on oddball parts that are
rare and thus expensive.
> Clearly the big, thick wing will
> add more drag.
That's the lion's share.
> Dihedral will affect responsiveness, but will it
> affect drag as well?
Sure - increased dihedral means more of your lift is going somewhere
other than up, so now you need more lift, thus more drag.
> Does washout have a big effect on drag?
Big enough. It means you have a bunch of wing out there causing drag
and not doing as much as it could be to generate lift.
Michael
JerryK
have it's 1000 hour overhauled by the guys in Reeding. The thing get's hot
enough to roast mashmallows. :->
But your point is well taken. What I have found is that if you throw all of
the things you have in a number twin (radar, boots, hot props, A/C,
windshield de-ice, pressurization, etc.) you have as many or more problems
in the single. And the operating expenses of these items is about the same.
The issue is that these system are more common in twins.
jerry
ds.org> wrote in message news:tb9sl-...@news.lairds.org...
>
> Find a single-engine owner who has spent over $6K to fix
> his heater (and still doesn't have a working heater) then
> let's talk.
>
> --kyler (fresh out of annual and two days of flying...)
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
G.R. Patterson III
Jim Jam wrote:
>
> I'm looking at picking up a twin-piston aircraft.
"Twin-piston"?
> I'm just wondering how one would go about figuring operating cost.
There are fixed costs and pre-hour costs and pro-rated costs. Fixed costs
are those you pay whether the plane flies or not. These are the annual
inspection cost, the tie-down or hangar fees, and the cost of insurance.
Per-hour costs are basically the cost of gas and oil, the cost of preventative
maintenance, and the cost of breakdowns.
Pro-rated costs are the costs of things you know you will have to do in the
future, such as overhaul at TBO.
If you borrow money to buy the plane, there are also interest expenses. There
may be depreciation, or, with an older plane, there may be appreciation to
figure in. Many of us ignore these.
Whether you borrow money or not, some people would argue that you should
figure as a cost the loss of profit you might make by investing the money
elsewhere. Given the fact that the money I invested elsewhere has lost roughly
60% of its value in the last two years, I don't buy this argument (and never
have).
> I know you'll overhaul the engines somewhere around the TBO time. But
> beyond that I don't know much. I see all kinds of different overhauls
> (top, chrome, etc.?) what do they all mean.
A top overhaul means that one or more cylinders required work, but the "bottom
end" of the engine was not opened up. A major means that the entire engine was
checked, and all the parts either met specifications for return to service, or
were replaced. A chrome overhaul simply means that the inside of the cylinders
was chrome-plated.
George Patterson
"Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have
their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow.
Mike Rapoport
"G.R. Patterson III" <grpp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3E8CD738...@comcast.net...
>
>
> Jim Jam wrote:
> >
> > I'm looking at picking up a twin-piston aircraft.
>
> "Twin-piston"?
>
He is looking for a Harley Davidson airplane.
AirplaneListings.Com
news:tonyroberts-01...@h24-81-6-37.ok.shawcable.net:
> In article <kbmk8vstgvjo1rbno...@4ax.com>, Jim Jam
> <j...@jam.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, at what point would a TOH be done?
>
> In my own case , a top overhaul was done at 1150 TBO, because of
> sticking valve problems and loss of compression on one cylinder. Note
> that a TOH does not extend a TBO - at best it just helps you reach it.
>
> Unless you have a considerable disposable income or a particular rneed
> for a twin, I suggest that you start with a single engine aircraft. A
> twin does cost more than double the cost of a single to own, operate
> and maintain.
>
That seems counter intuitive... what is it that makes it more than double
to operate and maintain...?
--
Matt Lang
AirplaneListings.Com
Doug
$100k to purchase, and probably $5000/yr to insure a low time pilot. Add
$2000 for an annual. Hangars are $3000 a year. Those are your fixed costs.
You will pay fixed costs no matter how many or few hours you fly. Fuel is,
16 gal/hr, at $2.50 a gal. Now the big question mark, maintenance. Tires,
brakes, light bulbs, gyros, vacuum pumps, fuel system components,
generator/alternator, prop overhaul, etc. I would guess at $20 per hour, but
be prepared to throw $20k at it at any moment in time.
So fixed costs, $10,000
Hourly costs, 60
Reserves 20
Fly 100 hours and its $18,000 a year, or 180 an hour, not figuring in
capital costs.
Michael
> $100k to purchase
I'll be happy to sell mine for substantially less.
www.thisoldairplane.com
> So fixed costs, $10,000
> Hourly costs, 60
> Reserves 20
>
> Fly 100 hours and its $18,000 a year, or 180 an hour, not figuring in
> capital costs.
That all sounds about right, unfortunately.
Michael
Doug
"Michael" <crwd...@hotmail.com> wrote > "Doug"