The tag price of this new IFR C172 (G1000nxi) based at Orlando International is 400k$, it’s running cost is about 30k$ per year with zero flying hours
How? Are they overhauling the engine every year?
Re buying new, you don’t need to buy totally new. Do what smart people do with cars: buy something a few years old. No wear, no corrosion (yet). Probably no warranty but that should be ok; on mine I got a ~100k warranty bill due to Socata having put in a load of dodgy used avionics, but that would have been shaken out on something a few years old.
Peter wrote:
How? Are they overhauling the engine every year?
It’s 6k$ for maintenance & insurance plus 22k$ for hangar space with Signature at KMCO 
Peter wrote:
Re buying new, you don’t need to buy totally new. Do what smart people do with cars: buy something a few years old. No wear, no corrosion (yet)
What is the age cut off in years for the typical IFR type?
I would guess under 10 years, if hangared, should be zero corrosion and zero wear. But that still limits you to an SR22 or a DA42, or similar, taking the modern options. Could see a Mooney etc but they will be rare, due to very low volumes. The last TB20 was made ~2002 and although those should be pretty good they do need a competent prebuy because they are unlikely to have had a single owner since new, and in most cases the history is unknown.
Somebody paying $22k for hangarage is being, ahem, frivolous That is almost the going rate for a TBM around here.
hmng wrote:
I now about the 172 ‘killer’ from Vulcanair
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/august/01/vulcanair-single-expected-to-battle-cessna-172
“VULCANAIR SINGLE EXPECTED TO BATTLE CESSNA 172
$260,000 FOUR-SEATER ‘FANTASTIC’ FOR TRAINING MARKET”Is that how low you can go? Never mind anything else, just 4 seats, new, certified. What else is there?
And it’s apparently not vaporware either.
Hangarage at EHRD (Rotterdam-The Hague) isn’t cheap for sure, and it’s likely to be my largest fixed cost or close to it. But the €6k pa means I have nothing blocking me from a dispatch perspective, which is one of the key reasons I bought an airplane. I could get cheaper on asphalt or grass with no lights or instrument approaches, but that would just make me frustrated and ruin the experience. I’ve had one too many canceled flights with CAVU weather because the field is wet from yesterday’s rain. And I have lots of night experience and don’t want to be limited to landing in daylight given it gets dark at 15:30 LT in the winter.
I’m on the path of taking this 40-yr-old TB-10 to IFR + night readiness, come hell or high water. So we’ll see if it kills me in the process!
why does it have to be certfied? You can buy RV-10 assembled by a glider factory for 300K .. And might be even safer than SR22, if you operate mainly from short strips.. Also legal for IFR in lots of places..
@RobertL18C that aircraft looks really interesting, thankyou. I’ll do some research.
Airborne_Again wrote:
And it’s apparently not vaporware either.
No, it may be small volume production but it’s not vaporware. I saw a Vulcanair single a month or so ago, doing touch and goes at my base. Interesting to me because I was intrigued by the number of P.66 Partenavias I’ve seen in Italy (the new plane is a derivative of the old plane)
I know a guy who has a Wing Derringer, one of only a handful. It was designed by John Thorp if I remember correctly – you can see it in the ‘Cherokee style’ stabilator and wing planform. The owner is getting old, maybe it will be for sale some time. A more interesting plane for a bachelor than for me, now.
My large end unit hangar is $450 a month, by far my biggest aircraft ownership expense but possibly the best money I spend. I had it for 15 years or so. We had a Mother’s Day party there on Sunday, with four moms. If you’re going to spend money, it’s good to get value out of it… and everybody enjoys coming to the airport when they have a nice place to hang out there. Aircraft ownership has many enjoyable angles, if you make it so.
The previous day I was at the airport doing odds and ends, then decided spontaneously at 1:30 PM that I’d like to fly to another airport 200 miles away. The decision meant only that I pulled the plane out, jumped in and was there by 3:30. I had lunch, topped off with self serve fuel at $4.20 a gallon (cheap even by local standards) and enjoyed the flight home, coasting down in the late afternoon over mountainous terrain from 8500 ft, just enjoying the view. Doing that without arranging anything with anybody, just jumping in and going, is also worth something to me.
boscomantico wrote:
Regarding old vs. new: people who buy new (or almost new) aircraft are sometimes looked upon as “unclever” on forums like this one. People say “you can buy on old one of these for a fraction of the cost, but the same capability”, or “for the same money, you could buy a 40 year old, but much more capable type of airplane”.
I would say that depends hugely what your budget is and how much you can realistically spend.
Of course the reasoning you give in terms of reliability and all that is very much true, a brand new or “newish” airplane can be much more reliable than an older one, if it is properly maintained. And if budget allows it, I would never call anyone stupid to do what he likes. Particularly true of the Cirrus range, which has a valid and proven marketplace with such people. No, they are not stupid in the least, but to buy a new airplane we are talking 500k to 1mio these days. As to reliability, obviously there are different experiences also with new planes. I’ve been watching two Cirri around here quite closely, one SR22 and a Vision Jet, both have regular unscheduled maintenance events even though they are maintained by Cirrus Service centers. New may well be more reliable but not necessarily a guarantee for bugless flying.
What my points repeatedly are in this case is actually twofold:
First of all nobody profits if aviation remains a “rich man’s sport”, on the opposite. We already have this image, quite unjustified, and basically saying only new planes are good planes would increase that more. Someone with a budget of 50k can easily operate a plane too, not only those who can finance a 500k airplane.
But much more important in my view is something different.
For a given budget, one has to be able not only to buy but also to operate. Unless you buy factory new, almost every airplane will need some sort of upgrade that you want and others don’t. And with some airplanes, particularly with G1000 and similar sets, those can be vicious or not available at all (e.g. WAAS upgrade).
In a case where someone turns up and has his eyes on newish airplane which he can just about pay for with the budget he has, that is when I will advise caution. Similarily, if someone right out of flight school wants to buy the type he trained on just because he has not seen anything else.
Let’s say someone turns up with a 100k budget. In that case I would advise to look in the range of 50k and keep the rest for upgrades and flying. 100k will either buy the lowest possible “modern” airplane or an upper end “vintage” airplane. Neither will be perfect, but there are huge differences between individual hulls.
That old airplanes can be operated very reliably and under IFR e.t.c. without breaking the bank once they have been put in order, well, I guess nobody proves that better than Jan Brill with his Bonnie. That airplane was quite cheap to buy, had a few snags which he fixed and now he flies it happily IFR to commute between work and home, over the Alps no less. Ok, Jan is not your round the mill GA pilot but a very experienced guy, but nevertheless, a 1950ties Bonanza does the job for a fraction of the price a newer plane would do it.
The same thing goes for many older planes which have been well maintained and upgraded. Engine reliability depends on many factors but a new or overhauled engine is not that different if it’s installed in a Cirrus or a 50 year old Piper. Avionics: Peter for instance with his “steam” cockpit will have massively fewer issues upgrading than someone who buys a non-waas G1000 airplane, apart from having the choice.
The question is always about opportunity and mission and budget. And there I simply say: Keep your mind as open as you can. Nothing should be outruled straight out when looking for the “perfect” airplane. Sometimes, the best solution is definitely not the one you expected. Sometimes a well kept and upgraded Seneca can be a better solution to a particular mission than a newish 4 seater which in reality can carry 2 1/2.
Finally, there is one other aspect. When starting any project, even when you are quite sure what you want, it can be totally eye opening to have people like us forumites to pound the foundation with a sledge hammer to see if it holds. Either by temptation for other types or even ownership at all. Anyone who gets through that may have either found his own idea confirmed and even re-enforced or may find a better solution he never thought off or, in the worst case, may realize that with the financial possibilities he has, the dream will have to wait or be re-defined. In my view, this beats hugely going into a financial disaster by buying the wrong airplane at the wrong time or finding out it is not what you imagined in the first place.
Those who have the money to go new, no problem, go ahead and do it. That is not stupid, that makes sense, and anyway, someone has to be the one to buy new, take the depreciation and all that so one day those who come with a lower budget can come in and buy those nice used planes.
My large end unit hangar is $450 a month, by far my biggest aircraft ownership expense but possibly the best money I spend.
@Silvaire having a nice hangar transforms the ownership experience. As with @dutch_flyer hangar cost is a good investment and helps protect value.
