Lancair 235/320 ownership costs? (Barring insurance)

[DMD3.]

I recently joined the LancairTalk forum, but I thought I’d ask this on here as well. From what I’ve read, the 200-360 models seem to be pretty affordable maintenance-wise, and that includes the retractable landing gear system (not unlike Mooney). For those who have experience with these models, how true would you say this is, particularly with the 320? I’m particularly interested in that model or a 235 with an o-320 upgrade, as they’d likely be a bit more affordable than the 360 with only marginally lower performance.

I’m aware that any airplane; even something like a Cherokee 140 or Cessna 150, can chew a $10k+ hole in your wallet, so some years can be worse than others regarding the annual/CI. I’m also painfully aware of the insurance rates, which is why I’m not including that at this time. And I know all about Vans RVs (particularly the 6-9 models) which will cruise only 30-40 kts slower on fixed-gear but have larger cockpits, shorter takeoff/landings, and are overall more forgiving, but I still want to learn all I can about Lancairs.

 

[hindsight2020]

sounds like you got a good pulse on the realities tbh, especially wrt the competing choices. BLUF:I don't think they're any more or less affordable that competing choices. Not in significant ways anyways. I know you want to handwave the insurance line item, but that's likely to be your biggest nut, the rest is no different than an RV or Glasair in terms of ownership headaches.

EAB is as always, the advantage here. I no longer value retracts in this space, but if those extra knots are worth the additional mx complexity to you, by all means.

Nothing cosmic, tiny little lawnmowers, which is one tradeoff, made the PA-28s I used to own look like a Caravan. Fast, squirrely when they get slow, not my first choice of single engine airplane if the engine quits, again life's a series of tradeoffs. Insurance is a known, not uncommon for folks around these parts to carry liability only post-2020 clown country monetary situation.

I'm so desperate these days about my work commute I started passively looking at them again since side by side RVs have jumped the shark, looked at prices for even the smallest cabin one (235 with or without the O-320 upgrade), laughed, and closed the browser. Good luck to ya.

 

[FORANE]

Go liability only; quoted at $645 last year.

Ownership cost is high when there's all sorts of shiny avionics that you can install yourself and you lack the discipline to walk away from the shiny things. This is a big one that I think is underestimated.

Annual condition inspection is the wild card. I found many mechanics know little more about Lancairs than you do now. Some of them were willing to work with me; some wanted me to turn it over to them. My experience was turning it over could get costly; many things were done that I viewed as unnecessary. Some unnecessary things were done, screwed up due to lack of familiarity in type, parts bought (and charged for) again, then redone only to get it back to the condition it was in before they messed with it. Never again...

The engine is much like any other Lycoming that may break at any point. The experimental part affords the ability to use a variety of accessories. Such as Emags, auto plugs, custom heaters, auto voltage regulator, auto alternator etc. There is cost savings to be had due to this. I just bought an alternator for it; the price has gone up, it was $59 with tax.

If you have an interest in doing your own maintenance the door is open. Again, cost savings to be had.

Comparing our Lancair to the RV-9a we had, the Lancair is more costly to maintain. This is in large part due to more systems. The Lancair has power trim for roll and pitch; the RV had a manual lever with spring attached to the bottom of the stick for roll trim. The Lancair has gear which over the years has failed many times. Gear cylinder rebuilds, solenoid replacements, pressure switch replacements, etc but none of that was very costly; maybe $100 here or there was all because I did all my own work. The Lancair has an electric MT prop; the RV had a fixed pitch metal prop. That prop overhaul was expensive, into 5 figures...

 

[DMD3.]

sounds like you got a good pulse on the realities tbh, especially wrt the competing choices. BLUF:I don't think they're any more or less affordable that competing choices. Not in significant ways anyways. I know you want to handwave the insurance line item, but that's likely to be your biggest nut, the rest is no different than an RV or Glasair in terms of ownership headaches.

EAB is as always, the advantage here. I no longer value retracts in this space, but if those extra knots are worth the additional mx complexity to you, by all means.

Nothing cosmic, tiny little lawnmowers, which is one tradeoff, made the PA-28s I used to own look like a Caravan. Fast, squirrely when they get slow, not my first choice of single engine airplane if the engine quits, again life's a series of tradeoffs. Insurance is a known, not uncommon for folks around these parts to carry liability only post-2020 clown country monetary situation.

I'm so desperate these days about my work commute I started passively looking at them again since side by side RVs have jumped the shark, looked at prices for even the smallest cabin one (235 with or without the O-320 upgrade), laughed, and closed the browser. Good luck to ya.

The RV 8’s have jumped even more apparently.

I’m also passively looking into them. For the most part, I’ve never been interested in retracts due to added complexity and expenses (not to mention insurance regarding other aircraft), but again, I’ve read claims that the landing gear is simple and doesn’t add that much to maintenance costs. For many aircraft, RG only adds a marginal increase in speed (there’s a video of a Questair Venture where the owner converted it to fixed-gear, and he claims he only lost 9 kts in cruise). But fixed-gear Lancairs are said to be as much as 30 kts slower than the retracts, so that’s a considerable difference. I’d DEFINITELY opt for an RV over a fixed version in that case.

Insurance is so high that if you just save or invest the money you’d spend, in several years you could almost buy another aircraft (or at least make a very big down payment for one).

 

[DMD3.]

Go liability only; quoted at $645 last year.

Ownership cost is high when there's all sorts of shiny avionics that you can install yourself and you lack the discipline to walk away from the shiny things. This is a big one that I think is underestimated.

Annual condition inspection is the wild card. I found many mechanics know little more about Lancairs than you do now. Some of them were willing to work with me; some wanted me to turn it over to them. My experience was turning it over could get costly; many things were done that I viewed as unnecessary. Some unnecessary things were done, screwed up due to lack of familiarity in type, parts bought (and charged for) again, then redone only to get it back to the condition it was in before they messed with it. Never again...

The engine is much like any other Lycoming that may break at any point. The experimental part affords the ability to use a variety of accessories. Such as Emags, auto plugs, custom heaters, auto voltage regulator, auto alternator etc. There is cost savings to be had due to this. I just bought an alternator for it; the price has gone up, it was $59 with tax.

If you have an interest in doing your own maintenance the door is open. Again, cost savings to be had.

Comparing our Lancair to the RV-9a we had, the Lancair is more costly to maintain. This is in large part due to more systems. The Lancair has power trim for roll and pitch; the RV had a manual lever with spring attached to the bottom of the stick for roll trim. The Lancair has gear which over the years has failed many times. Gear cylinder rebuilds, solenoid replacements, pressure switch replacements, etc but none of that was very costly; maybe $100 here or there was all because I did all my own work. The Lancair has an electric MT prop; the RV had a fixed pitch metal prop. That prop overhaul was expensive, into 5 figures...

According to the folks at VAF, maintenance won’t really be less but shouldn’t be MORE than a typical spam can Skyhawk or Cherokee if I don’t perform my own maintenance (on an RV). But the Lancair people talked like I can get ripped off from the inside out by hiring someone.

 

[FORANE]

Just speaking from my own experience I would concur. More systems more stuff to research, play with, screw up, etc.

 

[DMD3.]

Just speaking from my own experience I would concur. More systems more stuff to research, play with, screw up, etc.

I failed to mention that I’m not one of those who wants a $100k glass cockpit. Perhaps something like a Dynon Skyview combined with Foreflight is enough for me. I’ll even be happy with steam gauges if the purchase price is low enough yet the airframe/engine are good on the prebuy (potentially big ‘if’).

 

[hindsight2020]

Insurance is so high that if you just save or invest the money you’d spend, in several years you could almost buy another aircraft (or at least make a very big down payment for one).

Indeed. I would do exactly that with the delta in insurance premium on a different interest bearing vehicle and eat the hull risk.... if prices were inflation adjusted to a historical line based on oh say... 2010-2019 money date acquisition date. But at current capex? It's a non-starter.

According to the folks at VAF, maintenance won’t really be less but shouldn’t be MORE than a typical spam can Skyhawk or Cherokee if I don’t perform my own maintenance (on an RV). But the Lancair people talked like I can get ripped off from the inside out by hiring someone.

Both groups are overstating the case from where I sit. But whatever, I'll stipulate. My point is the causation on this, is captive audience dynamics (e.g legal dependence on fac-built, credentialism/signatory grift), not make and model.

I failed to mention that I’m not one of those who wants a $100k glass cockpit. Perhaps something like a Dynon Skyview combined with Foreflight is enough for me. I’ll even be happy with steam gauges if the purchase price is low enough yet the airframe/engine are good on the prebuy (potentially big ‘if’).

That's the problem though, as of my last check last night, clowns want those very 100k for a steam gauge underutilized and calendar timed out thrice over engine, Lanc 235 fuse. It's a 50k airplane fam, at most. Probably less when you account for powerplant replacement costs in 2025. Forget the proverbial "100k on avionics" on top of that. It's a shame, but the market for sanely-priced "bare-boned" EAB in this category is nill, in present circumstances.

Pocket listings are about the only way anything resembling your remark is actually moving. Which is to say you won't see it, @ArrowFlyer86 running list won't capture them, and otherwise is definitionally an incestous game of who you know; which is why this hobby codes as so elitist in the first place but I digress.

So your inquiry is frankly academic given the price point. I've been looking hard since my fac built blowded up (14 months), and more than 2 years if you count passively from the inflation adjusted *peak (*summer 2023). Lost count the amount of offers I've made, to include ones accepted, then you open the books and it's a quick holy crap I'm outta here. Didn't even offer counter offer, as I knew these sellers aren't interested in the discount, which is also how I know they're selling their junk and they know it.