wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja) (12/16/84)
> A 152 is a reasonable trainer. But at 5.5 gallons per hour cruising at > 96 kts it's hideously expensive to operate (not to mention the maintenance > costs - which I already have). Aside from the 152, the others in the 150 > series are museum pieces (or should be). To fly one of these relics, you > would have to adopt the same mentality as the guys who spend hours and > dollars renovating antique cars. > The reason that antique planes are a glut on the market is that they > are too expensive to operate: your $7000 Cessna will probably cost > between $3k and $5k to maintain, insure, and operate in the first year, > and that's assuming that you only put 100 hours on it and combine your > yearly inspection with the 100 hour inspection! The PA proposal will > help bring that cost down a bit (operational costs will still remain > high - $1000 per 100 hours for fuel alone). Meanwhile, I expect that > the PA proposal will allow new designed planes in the $15k - $20k > price range which offer a two for one performance advantage over these > older aircraft. I can't wait! I feel that I have to do a little defending here- I am the owner of one of those "Hideously expensive antique 150s." What a crock of crap! Oh gosh, 5.5 gallons/hour is certainly a hellish fuel consumption rate. I mean, burning autogas, my pocket is being sucked dry at the rate of $7.20 an hour. Horrors! Over the course of the year, flying 100 hours, direct fuel cost is $720. If I was flying a fiberglass pickle fork, I might be burning 3.5 gal/hour- a savings over the year of $265! Gee! But you spent $20,000 by the time your pickle fork is finished... which means I spent $14,000 less, to account for the difference in fuel consumption. Maintenance expenses? I've go two things wrong with my 150, poor brakes and the A/S acting a little screwy. Under the PA proposal, I'd be able to fix those brakes myself (indeed, I may be able to fix them myself under the current regulations). But I'll leave the A/S repairs to experts, and I kind of suspect you would do the same. Sure, you might have installed a brand new guage in your Glasaire... but you more likely hunted around and found a used one for a whole lot less! Mainenance Expenses II: My 150 had a magneto replaced in 1978. The other mag has about a 150 rpm drop, so I suspect I may have to replace it soon. But look under the hood of a Q-200, Vari-eze, Glasair, and whatnot- what do you find? The same goddamn certified engine that is used by all those antique aircraft. Do you think they were bought new? Nope, they were removed from scrapped aircraft. Any engine maintenance problems that I have to face, you'll have to face! I haven't paid much attention to the PA proposal, but I seem to remember these point: 1. Aircraft considered under the proposal seem to be those which are not considered "complex aircraft", in other words, less than 200 HP, no retract gear or wiggly prop, etc. In other words, the expensive maintenance items are eliminated 2. The Primary Aircraft are FOUR seats or less... not just two seaters. 3. The owner would be allowed to perform more maintenance, including annuals I might have some of these points mixed up with the "recreational pilot" concept being bandied about, but I'm sure someone will correct me. Initially, I was about to flame about the $3K to $5K estimate of yearly operating costs... 'til I did some figuring, and found that this value was only a little high. The only thing is, if you fly the A/C yourself, and check it over thoughouly, you don't need a 100 hour inspection... besides, 100 hrs/year is a typical utilization rate. Anyway, I challenge you to tell me how much less your Kitbuilt A/C will cost, per year. If you have folding wings (pretty rare) you'll save on tiedown. You'll probably pay MORE in insurance (if you carry more than just liability). The only thing I have to pay that you don't is for a certified mechanic- and if I've read the proposal right, I may not have to do even that. Admittedly my costs will be a little higher, the same as a used car costs more than a new one to maintain. But I can buy parts from a lot of scrap airplanes. "No demand for these old Cessnas?" The night I test-flew my 150 before buying it, there where 2 other guys out there for the same purpose. The previous owner had put a sign in the window, and a picture up on the bulletin board... no newpaper ads, no trade-a-plane. He sold it pretty fast. One other point to consider... I was able to buy my 150 for $6000, which I had available, in cash. Had I wanted a much more expensive A/C, I would have had to get a loan. Such loans are possible, some banks around here will loan money for airplanes, holding the title, etc, just like they do a car. But when you go into the bank and say "I'd like to borrow $15,000 so I can build my own airplane over the next three years," please bring a tape recorder. I don't want to miss their response. Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja) "Archbury Control, this is Ramrod leader..."
jlg@lanl.ARPA (12/19/84)
> Initially, I was about to flame about the $3K to $5K estimate of yearly > operating costs... 'til I did some figuring, and found that this value was > only a little high. The only thing is, if you fly the A/C yourself, and > check it over thoughouly, you don't need a 100 hour inspection... besides, > 100 hrs/year is a typical utilization rate. Anyway, I challenge you to tell > me how much less your Kitbuilt A/C will cost, per year. If you have folding > wings (pretty rare) you'll save on tiedown. You'll probably pay MORE in > insurance (if you carry more than just liability). The only thing I have > to pay that you don't is for a certified mechanic- and if I've read the > proposal right, I may not have to do even that. Admittedly my costs will > be a little higher, the same as a used car costs more than a new one to > maintain. But I can buy parts from a lot of scrap airplanes. I'm glad you admit that $3000-$5000 yearly is not really an overestimate of the support cost of these old buggys. I was careful NOT to overestimate (not much anyway). Furthermore, I never said that kitbuilt aircraft would be significantly cheaper to maintain (although, I think they will be slightly cheaper). I did say, or intend to say, that ALL planes will will be cheaper to maintain under the Primary Aircraft (PA) proposal. The main point about the new kitplane designs though is the increased cost/performance ratio. These new planes go 1.5 to 2 times faster on a third less fuel than the current batch of production aircraft. The new planes also fly higher (but not farther, darn - they have to use smaller fuel tanks to reduce weight and bulk). The cost to support these planes will probably be about the same, but the performance is nearly doubled. This makes them preferable to the older planes, if they were only available! Who knows how many new people would become interested in aircraft ownership if these new designs went into production. I don't have time to build a kit plane (or the space to do it in), if I did I would have a plane right now. I frankly don't find the Cessna ilk interesting enough to fly to pay the kind of support they require. Some of the kitplanes I've seen manage to cross this threshold of interest. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so - Louis Pastuer James Giles