As regards “50% purchase, 50% repairs” that suggest one bought an absolute dog. Unless one did so deliberately e.g. I might buy a completely shagged TB20 for 50k and spend 50k doing it up. But that would be a huge job; ok if you are old and single and nobody likes you
This is not something I subscribe to, that you need to buy a lesser aeroplane and keep an equal amount in reserve for maintenance. You need to buy smarter, and perhaps a bit off the beaten track to get some value. If I were to apply that logic, you would be splitting your budget in two and earning no interest on this reserve fund for fear something may go wrong. People who buy a boat know it will cost them 10% of the hull value a year plus fuel roughly.
Buying aeroplanes is a bit like buying property, you have to have a bit of a nose for it. I was looking at a derelict supermarket on my way to work, wondering who would ever buy that. The guy buys it, splits it into two and gets a government employment office as a tenant and a convenience store for the other half. The same building has now doubled in value because that guy knows his stuff. Some people are good at buying houses, boats, cars, horses or art and they just get on with it. Do you think someone puts half the price of a commercial property aside in case their tenant moves out? Or do they know what they are getting into before they start…..
dublinpilot wrote:
But in 10 years time they will probably look quite dated and the manufacture’s latest gismo do a lot more.
I believe this is really all part of planned obsolescence. What the manufacturer really likes about selling you an integrated system (or more accurately, the idea that an integrated system is necessary) is that one day they’ll be able to sell you another one.
This has been going on for years with yachts. Your autohelm control head gets a soaking from a big wave and packs up, so you go to the manufacturer for a new one – should be simple enough. “Ah,” they say, “that particular control head is no longer available so really you want to upgrade the whole system and by the way the new one does all these fancy things and $$$…”
The nice thing about steam and partial glass is that all the instruments are individually repairable or replaceable at moderate cost, as well as tending to last a long time anyway. A failure can only cost you so much, and often nothing at all if money is really tight and go for the do-nothing option.
First of all, the half and half e.t.c. bugdet advice clearly is not something for seasoned buyers but mainly for first timers who have yet to experience the joys of owning an airplane and who should in all possibility be protected against experiences like the infamous traveller prop strike and similar. Likewise, the half and half proposition is particularly important for people who need to buy in the lower end of the segment and who don’t have excess cash to fix up stuff. Many of those find themselves in a situation where they buy something and get grounded financially within the first 12 months because of total underestimation of running costs and unforeseen things.
It is also important to consider that the half does include a lot more than “just” maintenance: Upgrades, the “first annual” which ususally is a biggie and imho possibly the first flying season.
Generally speaking, anyone should be able to fork out an unexpected engine overhaul and whatever upgrades one needs, plus running costs to the first annual plus the annual itself. So there are more elaborate ways to calculate a budget than half/half and clearly you can cap it someplace. Let’ say that infamous 1st annual, avionic upgrade upon requirement and an engine overhaul/replacement should normally do nicely. Hence, I would call half/half a valid proposition for the segment below 200k. Above that, cap the overhead at 100k. That should be generous. For twins, 150k up to a Seneca or so. Clearly also, half and half won’t be enough in the case of a 20k airplane and a 40k budget, but again that is a question of condition e.t.c.
And again, that is planning at the outset. The real thing can pretty quickly free some of the funds, also pre-purchase, if e.g. one sees one has a low time engine and all the avoinics one needs and wants.
For instance: You are looking for a traveller in the region of an older Arrow, Mooney up to 201, TB10, PA28 with a 100k all over budget (which includes the inital operating costs e.g. for the first year). Any of these airplanes will get a 5-10k first annual. Engine reserve may depend on running time but conservatively speaking I’d keep 20k in reserve for that, 10k for minor upgrades and 10-15k for the first year operation including insurance. That ends up with neatly at 50k, so I’d be looking at that segment of maybe 40-60k. Depending on the actual status of a valid candidate, you can shift that up or down. If it has all the avionics, the plane can cost that much more, if the engine is 300 hrs since overhaul 2 years ago, you may go 3/4 to 1/4 or so.
Which does not mean you can’t buy an airplane with a budget of 50k, but even more so I’d then go for max 30k to buy.
And it also means, someone who is looking for an airplane which is not upgradable (e.g. a G1000W Cirrus or similar) will have different reserve requirements than someone who picks up a non-waas shotgun panel PA28-180 or vintage Mooney or even a normally equipped TB20.
On the upper echelon, the ones who buy a brand new Cirrus with factory warranty will need an overhead for their first years insurance and running costs. Those who go for a low time Cirrus will need to facture parashute maintenance and similar stuff into their overhead budget. But with running costs of 30k and re-current stuff even owners of a brand new Cirrus won’t be happy if all they can do is dust it off from time to time because they lack the money to operate it.
Again, the more you know about costs and what tends to happen, the more exact you can do your calcs and decide just how much of your total budget you can shell out.
The other aspect is of course the horrendous pricing of new airplanes. Ok, this is me, but this opens up a totally new can of worms yet again. there the half and half proposition can get a totally different meaning if, for instance, for half the price of a new airplane you can get something not that new but much more capable and maybe even better suited for the mission. And then use the rest to fly it for the first couple of years. I’ve seen people who were in the market of a brand new G1000W all bells and whistles airplane but eventually found that a 15 year old G1000 equipped Twin for half the price plus 30 k WAAS upgrade was the much better proposition in terms of cabin, payload and range. Or who found out that the same money will buy them a used but very decent Jet Prop or Meridian.
Graham wrote:
The nice thing about steam and partial glass is that all the instruments are individually repairable or replaceable at moderate cost, as well as tending to last a long time anyway. A failure can only cost you so much, and often nothing at all if money is really tight and go for the do-nothing option.
Very true indeed.
“Glass” is really cheap to make. The only pricey bits are the big LCDs (those with decent filters so they are sunlight-visible) and – in low volumes – nicely made diecast boxes (like Garmin use, but those aren’t exactly low volume). The “circuit board” costs peanuts. I am currently working on a 168MHz ARM project (CPU cost £7.70 100-off) which has enough power to run a PFD, a KFC225, a GNS530W, a fuel totaliser, a transponder, and an engine monitor. Total parts cost is maybe £30 for the CPU section.
Obviously it costs more by the time it has been divided up into modules and analog I/O added, etc. The RF stuff always costs a fair bit, due to the large component count, but only $100s.
My assertion is that downtime is much more controllable if you have separated avionics. Then you can do a lot of flying 
And because glass is so fashionable, non-glass planes are going for less money, so you can pick up a solid example for much less. Take my TB20 for example. It is 100% functional. Yeah, the paintwork needs a tart-up in places, but who cares? I don’t think I have ever cancelled a flight due to it “going tech”, since I got it in 2002. Well, almost… I got a prop strike when it was 1hr old, and lost 2-3 months. All other downtime was scheduled work, usually done in sh*it wx in the middle of the winter. The result is a load of great flying; a small selection here. It isn’t for sale though.
Peter wrote:
My assertion is that downtime is much more controllable if you have separated avionics. Then you can do a lot of flying
It can go both ways.
As you know from an owners point of view I agree with you as for the upgradability and your “right to choose”, which in terms of integrated flight decks is between options and for the rest of us means everything there is an STC for.
As for maintenance, again two sides of the medal. Integrated flight decks like the G1000 mean that parts availability is generally a given as there are thousands of them around. The problem is however if a certain generation is phased out and the screens or parts no longer available. Then of course you are over a barrel. But in day to day ops of a current system, parts availability can be similar or better to legacy systems. What is different may be the dependency on a single provider.
I’m not a fan of certified electronics on airplanes for exactly the reason @Graham describes. What I like about my plane and many others of the era is that it was designed by people completely out of the marketing driven engineering paradigm, and I’d like it to stay that way.
I’ve probably spent about $25K on maintaining and improving my plane in the 11 years since purchase in 2010. The biggest item was a prop overhaul (IIRC $4K) , then a new transponder ($3k), two new canopy transparencies ($2k), an alternator ($500), labor for cleaning up the wiring ($1300) and otherwise mostly odds and ends in $500 or lower increments. Much of that was owner assisted, which really means owner performed under A&P supervision. Meeting the right people who will help you, not harm you is important.
Big ticket items that might be in my future are a $15K paint job (which is likely, a gift to myself versus a real necessity) and an engine IRAN or overhaul. I will have been enjoying the plane for many years by the time of those costs, if they come, and will hopefully enjoy it for years afterward.
My biggest cost by far in aircraft ownership is the hangar, but as I’ve mentioned before this is very useful for many things other than covering the plane.
Silvaire wrote:
Big ticket items that might be in my future are a $15K paint job
Sounds pretty high for the type you’re flying. We paid about that but with lots of extra work for a C210. SoCal.
It will be a very nice paint job, not the Compton kind 
Silvaire wrote:
It will be a very nice paint job, not the Compton kind
Ours was great and certainly NOT done in Compton, LOL !
