@Silvaire cheaper but more boring :)
I’ve had my PPL for 2yrs but am already on aircraft #2. I think anyone who’s only flown some spamcans like Cessnas and pipers needs to go and try some tailwheel, aerobatic etc… And realise how fun some types of flying are before committing to a spam can for burger runs.
Or have both; possibly in a small, tight, like-minded group. Or not.
Silvaire wrote:
That depends on whether your goal is to learn and understand about several kinds of flying and planes, then decide what you like based on experience, or to predefine your mission based on structured and limited experience and then stick to it. The latter is certainly cheaper, assuming disillusionment and aircraft-divorce doesn’t follow a big investment to create a ‘perfect’ plane based on the predefined criteria…
Correct.
IO390 wrote:
@Silvaire cheaper but more boring :)I’ve had my PPL for 2yrs but am already on aircraft #2. I think anyone who’s only flown some spamcans like Cessnas and pipers needs to go and try some tailwheel, aerobatic etc… And realise how fun some types of flying are before committing to a spam can for burger runs.
Been there, done that, got that T-shirt and enjoyed it tremendously (tailwheels and aerobatics). But besides from the “boring” spamcans – what tailwheels and/or aerobatics carry 4 people on nice cross country trips? I totally agree on the perspective that one should go and try out both tailwheel and aerobatics – I just don´t think it´s a general realistic option for most owners.
tmo wrote:
tmo25-Oct-23 21:3722
Or have both; possibly in a small, tight, like-minded group. Or not.
Groups of more than one. No thanks. Sharing is not caring.
It’s quite important to know that avionic upgrades are much more cost intensive than an engine overhaul, which opposed to upgrades are a fairly known quantity.
Avionics around 50k. TB20 engine more than that.
TB21 engine 80-100k.
The TB20 is a real unicorn among SEPs.
A FIKI example I looked at can do 4*85kg pax, 40kg of luggage and fuel for 3.5 hours which equals a solid 2 hours IFR + 1.5 hours alt/reserve. I am not aware of any other plane in the 150-200k cost range with such capability. It’s a great IFR tourer. Not so much a great bimbling around small UK strips plane.
The drawbacks: Not many built. Of the few available, many, if not to say most, are not maintained adequately. Shops don’t heed critical maintenance procedures e.g. correct application of grease. Corrosion as with all metal airplanes is a factor. There is a small group of convinced and engaged owners in the US, those planes are usually in better shape.
Parts prices are TBM level, extremely high. Used parts aren’t readily available due to low production numbers. It’s 2023 so even 90’s planes now have a few decades on the airframe.
@Peter is the man for advice. His is probably the best kept by a wide margin.
TIO540 (TB21) engine costs much more to OH than IO540 (TB20) which should be around the 30k-40k area, depending on whether you are EASA-reg or not (much wider engine shop choice if N-reg; avoids the European shops which are often dodgy).
Fleet size is about 2k but only a part of that is TB20s.
Parts prices are a bit higher than US-made GA average but not anywhere near TBM level. But if it has been looked after, airframe parts are not needed much and that is true for all of GA types: neglect is very expensive.
If you want to run a shagged plane, on a minimal maint regime, get a C182 
All reasonable advice, to be balanced by the OPs own judgement
One aspect that has not been mentioned clearly enough is in the cost of acquiring/selling aircraft. Some take it easy, for others it is a bit like a divorce, to use the above example. It greatly depends on how particular you are and how you deal with different maintenance organizations.´
Let me explain: there is a large amount of investment into acquiring an aircraft and getting it up to your standard (even before reconfiguring/upgrading it). The investment is economical as much as emotional, relational, etc…The rewards are huge too, but if as soon as you are starting to enjoy them you have to sell because you only bought it as a short-term plan, then a large part of that investment is simply…lost.
This speaks in favour of thinking long-run.
As to personal experience in trying different aircraft, in the old times it was more difficult to get a taste of different types, but with so much info available online nowadays, the gap between reading and experiencing is smaller. Also, if in doubt, it cannot be that difficult to engage with current owners in this or other forums, offer to pay a fuel bill and lunch and go for a flight in their steed to get some feel before engaging in the actual purchase adventure.
Peter wrote:
a shagged plane, on a minimal maint regime, get a C182
A lot of 182’s are not shagged, come on. However, when used for travelling and compared to TB20 it is a fuel guzzler. A 182 RG would be more TB20-comparable in travelling performance while adding to the grass capabilities. A couple of non-shagged examples (one for sale) mentioned here
A non-negligible aspect is ramp looks, and arguably few SEP’s beat a TB20 on that…but you don’t get to enjoy your aircraft’s looks while flying.
A TKS TB20 should be long-term thinking for the OP with the A/M caveats.
I was referring to an ability for a plane to remain usable despite minimal maintenance Some types just take a lot more abuse.
There are very good reasons why flying schools like the basic types, and indeed pay huge money for new ones.
Quite a few GTs have the TKS propeller and that works really well. I had just that for 16 years, before installing the full TKS system (see other threads).
I don’t find the TB20 expensive to run; in fact it is really cheap. But then I run mine on a zero-defect policy, and having had it since new also helps a lot. I know of a syndicate (pre-GT) whose plane had a very hard previous life and their annuals seem to be 10k every time. But then I knew of a syndicate around a C150 whose annuals were also 10k…
As usual, there is good reading under “Threads possibly related to this one” below.
