Afraid to maintain an old plane

Wait... we haven't brought twins into the thread yet....
 
Ray Jr said:
I think you guys answered it. I appreciate all your advice very much. I have lots to think about. Cheers
Click to expand...

Not all airplane models of the same vintage are created equal. You're gonna get mouth-foaming responses from the type cults, but parts count and complexity does matter towards what you're hinting you're concerned about. Your intuition is correct, and you should follow that instinct. Most often, owners of the aforementioned will dismiss the claim by asserting "well, I've never had to replace x y z". Which is a deflection of the issue, specifically the omitting of the predicate of that sentence (e.g "...yet").

Ditto for one-off major structural components subject to ADs which can present hobby-souring, let alone insurance-totaling expenses. Some have OEM support, most don't. Others have cannibalizing support (aka a ton of serviceable spares sitting in junk yards) by virtue of the production numbers in their heyday; then further others don't (usually those with Textron as a daddy these days, though there are others in that camp outside of the Textron umbrella). If you want me to name-drop, you may PM me. I'm not gonna do it on the open otherwise, I'm done two-circle BFMing about a sector of the hobby I'm no longer invested in.

In closing, based on my own trials and tribulations, I would say if you can make your mission work with a 2 seater EAB, do that instead and never look back. Good luck!
 
hindsight2020 said:
In closing, based on my own trials and tribulations, I would say if you can make your mission work with a 2 seater EAB, do that instead and never look back. Good luck!
Click to expand...
My mission was tailor-made for E-AB. There's only one person who will fly with me....
 
MacFly said:
STC's are really expensive. I just bought a G5 Experimental and installed it myself....$1250 all-in. And I can toggle it between HSI and DG.
Click to expand...
Holy cow. This sounds very appealing to me. What would that have cost in a certified do you know?
 
Ray Jr said:
Bonanzas seem like the most expensive of all the little old singles. With parts to match (or so I've read)
Click to expand...

Want to talk expensive? Try to find a ruddervator skin for most of those V-Tails.
 
I fly a 1974 Cardinal RG that I’ve owned since 2013.

I work with a skilled IA/A&P and do owner assisted maintenance and annuals. That is I do as much of the work as my IA will approve under his supervision and oversight. I enjoy doing the work and he ensures that I do it right and that I don’t miss something critical.

My average maintenance cost has been around $2000 a year including oil changes every 25 hours. My ‘surprises’ include a vacuum failure (about $700) a couple of years ago and a failed alternator this year. Replacing the alternator came out to around $800. I found out last week that killing the battery due to the alternator failure finished off the battery. Replacing the battery added another $300. The alternator / battery failure will jump my maintenance cost to around $3500 this year. That’s by far my most expensive year so far.

I average between 100 and 125 hours a year so I consider the cost to be pretty reasonable for a plane that averages 165 mph TAS on just under 10-gallons an hour. With my wife and I (and way more stuff than I think we need to carry, we can do 5-hour legs (just over 800 miles no wind) and still have an hour’s reserve fuel. The AngelFlights I do usually carry two full size passengers and I can still fly 4-hour legs with reserves.

I believe that the keys to my results have been active membership and participation in the Cardinal Flyers Ownership group, great support from pilots on POA, and a focus on properly maintaining the plane including fixing any glitch as it’s discovered.

I suspect that a similar focus with most other planes would yield similar results. Take personal responsibility for overseeing how your plane is cared for and you’re likely to be OK.

I’m 6’4” and 225 lbs. I like the RV-6 but for my mission the 177RG is a better fit.
 
Ray Jr said:
Interesting. Which RV did you get?
You went with an RV because you wanted something newer basically?
Click to expand...

Try to remember that just because the RV airframe is "newer" doesn't necessarily mean everything in it is equally new. Used engines, used accessories, used avionics...you wouldn't believe how resourceful some homebuilders can be. ;)

And then there's the opposite end of the spectrum where no expense was spared in an attempt to show it off at OSH, everything in the plane has <300 hours on it because the seller really wants to build airplanes, not fly them, and needs the dough for his next project.
 
GRG55 said:
Try to remember that just because the RV airframe is "newer" doesn't necessarily mean everything in it is equally new. Used engines, used accessories, used avionics...you wouldn't believe how resourceful some homebuilders can be. ;)

And then there's the opposite end of the spectrum where no expense was spared in an attempt to show it off at OSH, everything in the plane has <300 hours on it because the seller really wants to build airplanes, not fly them, and needs the dough for his next project.
Click to expand...
Right. And the latter example there is not in my price range.
 
Cherokee-6, Cherokee-235? In the same general class as a 182, but for whatever reason 182s seem extra expensive lately, because I guess everyone wants one.
 
deyoung said:
Cherokee-6, Cherokee-235? In the same general class as a 182, but for whatever reason 182s seem extra expensive lately, because I guess everyone wants one.
Click to expand...

Ya, I have been looking at these. Cherokee 180 as well. A little more affordable
 
Ray Jr said:
Right. And the latter example there is not in my price range.
Click to expand...

You don't want the former.

The same is true in type certified airplanes, there are many owners that operate their airplanes on a shoestring budget. The airplanes usually look the part too, although not all of the transgressions are easily spotted.

My advice, buy the nicest example of a "lesser" airplane that you can find, rather than an average or worse example of what you want and don't want to afford. Long term, that decision will put you farther ahead and the uptime will likely be better as well.
 
There is no such thing as a cheap plane. All planes require constant maintenance and oversight. The things that usually break or wear out are not the airframe itself but all the other stuff...engines, engine accessories, hinges, tires, bearings bushings, cables, gaskets, hoses, spark plugs, props, hubs, governors, brakes, lights, avionics, etc.

a 65 year old plane will have had most of those items replaced several times by now so there will be a staggered age of new / old / repaired parts. A 10-15 year old plane may still be running on a bunch of stuff that hasn’t gone through it’s first replacement cycle yet. Point being is that airframe age isn’t always going to tell you much about future maintenance costs. Check the ADs but check that any plane you buy has actually been maintained along the way and you will have a fair shot at good luck on future maintenance costs.

All else being equal though it will be much cheaper to maintain an experimental; parts a much cheaper and more A&P’s seem to be willing to work with you on owner assisted maintenance providing oversight, final checks and sign offs but letting you put in the grunt work / hours so your not paying shop time.
 
If a 180 works for your mission, it's probably going to fit the budget a lot better. It won't haul what a 182 will, and it won't be quite as fast (depending), but it also has the advantage that parts are common and every A&P you'll meet will know them.
 
GRG55 said:
Try to remember that just because the RV airframe is "newer" doesn't necessarily mean everything in it is equally new. Used engines, used accessories, used avionics...you wouldn't believe how resourceful some homebuilders can be. ;)

And then there's the opposite end of the spectrum where no expense was spared in an attempt to show it off at OSH, everything in the plane has <300 hours on it because the seller really wants to build airplanes, not fly them, and needs the dough for his next project.
Click to expand...
Yes. Perusing the VAF forums can be dizzying.

Me...I'm not a tinkerer, but I know which end of a wrench to hold. I can do some airplane mechanic work but I have no interest in all the amazing stuff that some of those RV guys do in front of the firewall. For me...the firewall is the point where I don't make a move without my A&P looking over my shoulder. I bought my -9A for well under $100k. I had a rigorous condition inspection and pre-buy done, and I specified that nothing "weird" was going on under the cowl. Nope...it's a conventional factory-new Lycoming IO-320, 360 TTSN, and C/S prop....only non-STC weirdness is the P-Mag ignition and a very imaginative carbon fiber plenum that keeps CHTs in the 330 range climbing out on a hot day.

I'm a flyer, not a builder. I appreciate the ability to do my own maintenance, but I particularly appreciate having the option to ask the airport's A&P / IA to drive around some day after he's punched out at work and come work on my engine, or review my work and make sure I haven't screwed anything up.
 
Last edited:
You can also look at Grumman Tigers, and if you are into retracts, the Commander 112A’s are comfortable and do ok speed-wise. There are lots of choices but as many have said, every airplane is a compromise and each has its own strengths and weaknesses. And yes, even with an extensive pre-buy, it will be BOHICA time for either your first or second annual. But once you get through that and stay on top of your maintenance, things will smooth out.
 
If it was just my brother and I flying it, we'd be leaning heavily towards the 112A, but since I want to do some instructing as well, that pushes the needle back towards the Grummans.
 
WannFly said:
I shall repeat

Buying the airplane is the down payment for airplane maintenance

Certificated parts are crazy expensive.

I own a mode that was manufactured in 1979, I was born a few years before that. We both have parts to be replaced from time to time, the only difference is for the plane I can throw a few credit cards and it’s all good, not so much for my parts though.

Don’t compare car expenses with planes, you will be a tad disappointed.
Click to expand...
I know a few people that have had hips and knees replaced. The people with the aftermarket hips say they're better than OEM
 
The voluntary expenses can be worse than the mandatory ones. You buy a new plane, then convince yourself you NEED a new radio and transponder, gotta replace those vacuum gyros with dual G5's, IFR GPS will make you much safer, engine monitor to protect your investment, etc etc. Pretty soon you have tacked another $25K onto your investment, and that is before you even get into real maintenance items like engines, props, landing gear, or control surfaces.

If it flies, floats, or flirts, rent it.
 
MacFly said:
My mission was tailor-made for E-AB. There's only one person who will fly with me....
Click to expand...

I found that having a two seat experimental is the proper route for me. Most flights are solo and now and again I'll take a passenger. Amazing how many four seat airplanes are flown solo or with two souls on board. Renting a plane when taking a crowd makes sense.

120 knot cruise is good for me (we all want more speed) and as was pointed out earlier, another 10-15 knots isn't gonna make a huge difference time wise unless you've got a long trip in mind.

Being the builder and my own mechanic saves a lot of things beyond dollars as I get to choose what gets fixed and what the cost will be. I'm pretty meticulous with regards to my inspections and maintenance as my life and the lives of my passengers depend on it.
 
Let me toss in another POV. How many hours a year are you going to fly? If less than 100, and you're thinking about costs, look into joining a club or renting. They'll take care of the maintenance, insurance, hanger costs, etc. You'll be money ahead per flight hour, AND not have the risk of "surprise, you need to pay out now $30,000 because your engine just went south".
 
RV's are really cool. I think for a first ownership experience I tend to advise folks to stay away from them though. Buying and owning an airplane is complex, and there's a steep learning curve. Getting an experimental adds a whole raft of issues to the mix.

If the OP wants to go fast on less money there is no greater bang for your buck in GA than a short body Mooney. None. Yes, RVs will outrun one, but their acquisition costs are considerably higher. The OP's budget buys a crapload of Mooney. The RV will be acrobatic, easier to fix, and probably more fun to fly. Mooney has a back seat and can carry half ton.

If the OP never needs a back seat and never ever has to carry lots of stuff an RV might just be the ticket. I don't think his budget will buy much of one though. What the OP really has to realize is that there are no bargain airplanes. No matter what you pay, one way or another.
 
steingar said:
What the OP really has to realize is that there are no bargain airplanes. No matter what you pay, one way or another.
Click to expand...

Now that sounds like a great bit of wisdom.
 
WDD said:
Let me toss in another POV. How many hours a year are you going to fly? If less than 100, and you're thinking about costs, look into joining a club or renting. They'll take care of the maintenance, insurance, hanger costs, etc. You'll be money ahead per flight hour, AND not have the risk of "surprise, you need to pay out now $30,000 because your engine just went south".
Click to expand...

The thing I like about owning a plane is the convenience of not having to schedule it, but given the right flying club/association/partnership, or even the right FBO/airplane rental..those could be superior alternatives. The thing that pushed me to aircraft ownership was the fact that no such viable options are available to me.
 
Don’t forget the various owner group web sites like Van’s Air Force. Even if you aren’t a member, most will have specific forums you can scan. It will give you a perspective from actual owners on many topics.

Since I fly light sport now so I can avoid the torture of the SI Process, I bought an Ercoupe two years ago that’s almost as old as me. So far it’s had one replacement, the nose gear at $2000 that my partner and I installed under the supervision of a A&P / IA.

If I had my druthers and the required Medical, I’d buy an Experimental so I could pretty much do whatever I wanted.

BTW, the Coupe can use the experimental version of avionics except the transponder, ELT and ADSB gear since the original Type Certificate doesn’t require TSO radios, etc. People often don’t know or understand the rules in this area. If it isn’t in the Type Certificate or specifically in the FAR, VFR experimental avionic versions are fine.

Cheers
 
steingar said:
RV's are really cool. I think for a first ownership experience I tend to advise folks to stay away from them though. Buying and owning an airplane is complex, and there's a steep learning curve. Getting an experimental adds a whole raft of issues to the mix.

If the OP wants to go fast on less money there is no greater bang for your buck in GA than a short body Mooney. None. Yes, RVs will outrun one, but their acquisition costs are considerably higher. The OP's budget buys a crapload of Mooney. The RV will be acrobatic, easier to fix, and probably more fun to fly. Mooney has a back seat and can carry half ton.

If the OP never needs a back seat and never ever has to carry lots of stuff an RV might just be the ticket. I don't think his budget will buy much of one though. What the OP really has to realize is that there are no bargain airplanes. No matter what you pay, one way or another.
Click to expand...
I don't know...I found aircraft ownership in general to be a daunting prospect. I've owned pieces of airplanes over the last several decades, but this RV is the first one I've owned all by myself where all the decisions (and expenses) are on me. As it turns out...aircraft ownership is indeed very complicated and there is a steep learning curve, but it's manageable, and I haven't found the Experimental aspect of it to be particularly complicated. In fact, the opposite is kind of true...not being in the certificated world is kind of freeing relative to maintenance and upgrade decisions. Just because you can do your own maintenance doesn't mean you have to. The FBO's maintenance hangar is about 50 yards from mine. My A&P spends as much time in my hangar as I need him to and is a great source of advice. I do think that anyone (non-builder) that wants to jump into the Experimental world would be well-served to have someone, whether it's your A&P, a friend, a local builder, or a robust EAA chapter to help them along the way. The internet has a HUGE amount of info on owning Experiments, but every time a local RV owner or other Experimental type stops by my hangar, I learn a huge amount.
 
Last edited:
Ray Jr said:
Based on everything that’s that old is a maintenance pig?

This will be my first dive into airplane ownership. I read about strange little parts costing like 800 or something to replace. And the plane is a collection of 10,000 of those little parts. As a newbie outsider, seems pretty scary.
Click to expand...
My Bonanza is 53 years old, but there are very few thing in or on it that are that old, except for the skin.

Interior is 2 years old.
Engine and prop are 6 years old.
windshield and side windows are about 8 years old.
Panel is less than 15 yrs old.
Tires, batteries and other consumables get replaced on the same schedule they would on a new plane.
Everything else (landing gear, cables, etc et checked every year and replaced or repaired as necessary, just as you would on a new plane.

The only one of those things I paid for out-of-pocket was the interior and that was optional, because my wife wanted it.

If you buy an older plane that has been properly maintained, the biggest difference between new and old is a few hundred thousand dollars.
 
Ray Jr said:
Am I being crazy?

Im in the market for my first airplane. I want something that can put along at at least 140 knots. My usual trip is 650 miles. I don’t mind multi legs but I don’t want a head wind to double the trip time.

I would like the versatility of a C177 or 182 (tall pilot, likely passengers) but my price range is about 80000 which puts me in the bargain bin of these models. I am tempted to get an RV 6 instead for the simplicity of systems and the fact that it would be 10 years old instead of 65. That really limits the space for people and bags of course.

Is is crazy to assume a 60s model Cessna will be forever a maintenance pig?
Click to expand...

Neither of those listed are great 140 knot airplanes IMHO. Buy something with retracts like a Debonair or Comanche. (The Debonair is a pretty nice personal airplane if you aren't flying around the Rockies in the summer heat)
 
Last edited:
A good prebuy based on the recommendations of a model owners' group is wise. For instance, the Cardinal owners' group will point out that the wing spar center section tends to corrode in ways that can make it unrepairable, and that part is obscenely expensive even if it's available, and the replacement cost is big, too. You could almost buy another airplane with the money. The Cardinal also has issues with the stabilator mounting inside the tailcone. 210s have the same wing center-section spar corrosion problem as the 177, and a more recent AD addresses wing spar cracking. Mooneys have a steel-tube frame that rusts out. Every airplane has its weaknesses, and the older it is the more likely you could find a real show-stopper. As a mechanic I've seen this stuff too often.

Even as a licensed mechanic I would buy the RV. I could make my own parts for much of it, and the rest are easily and affordably obtainable. It's not likely to get written off because it needs some stupidly expensive or nonexistent part.
 
It is a sellers market. I have a 3840TT 67 Cherokee with 1800SMOH in 1972. Yep. Topped off 400hrs ago. No metal, compressions to beat the band... 1qt per 11 hour oil burn. Single Nav/Com with ADSB out. I had 2 offers in one day for 24K. I slipped at the gas pumps and said I might be putting it on the market. Have to watch what you say these days lol... Planes are selling like homes... quick. That said. The Cardinal is a great airplane. I would opt for the fixed gear model however.
 
Ray Jr said:
Yes, that is the sacrifice to get a "new" airplane.
The fight is easy west in the New England region. The headwinds heading west are not to be messed with. The sped is mostly about contending with them.
Click to expand...

I'd be more concerned about icing conditions prevalent in the Great Lakes region and northeast from November-April. That will eat into the practicality of a scheduled 650 nm trip in the winter months. Headwinds in spring and fall can be interesting in the northern tier. We had smooth 60 kt winds aloft at 6500' a week ago. That will be painful in any aircraft.
 
My 60 year old C-210D has been quite low maintenance including the hydraulics but if parts are needed Cessna has lost it's mind. Since all my maintenance is mechanic supervised but I do 98% of the work including major overhauls my costs a very low compared to most.
 
Ray, I fly a 1958 J35 Bonanza so your proposed plane is relatively modern. Everything needs mx. I'd say a 1960s 182 or cardinal would be just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top