Arrow vs 235 comparative costs

[wabower]

Same here, none can be sold in the 7-county area around DFW.

You can't always find Mogas with no ethanol. To me, the Mogas option is no longer a player.

 

[Henning]

Any system is only as strong as its weakest link. Some of the major structural issues have been addressed in some airplanes (such as the main gear structural improvement or the nose linkage that had a material change). Bell cranks are still breaking, there's a lot of rigging involved that requires frequent attention to be reliable, etc. etc.

Compared to the maintenance that the Aztec's landing gear has gotten which, over 900 hours, has been "none" (I did have a bunch of bushings and hoses replaced right when I bought it) and every other Aztec owner has told me the same thing, I'd say it's pretty fair to say that the 310's gear is weaker.

No doubt it is not as robust as an Aztec which is not as robust as a Baron. None of them however are particularly flimsy or maintenance intensive. I won't take the 310 into rough fields as I would an Aztec or Baron, but I'm not overly worried about the occasional hard landing either. The nice thing about the old 310s (Pre L I believe? Same year where the torque tube issue starts) is they have heavier duty gear components.

 

[Henning]

Same here, none can be sold in the 7-county area around DFW.

You can get it at the rack for off road use if you bring a tank.

 

[wabower]

It's a lot easier to fly to the airports outside the area than to go into the trucking business.

You can get it at the rack for off road use if you bring a tank.

 

[Henning]

It's a lot easier to fly to the airports outside the area than to go into the trucking business.

All it takes is a trailer you can pull with a car. For less than $2000 I can build a nice 250-300 gallon twin axle rig with brakes and a pump that you could tow around that area with nothing more than a compact car worth with a $150 hitch from U-Haul and a brake controller. If you have a pick up I could make it 1000 gallons for not much more. If you don't mind salvage parts I could build it for considerably less.

 

[wabower]

Where do I park the trailer?

All it takes is a trailer you can pull with a car. For less than $2000 I can build a nice 250-300 gallon twin axle rig with brakes and a pump that you could tow around that area with nothing more than a compact car worth with a $150 hitch from U-Haul and a brake controller. If you have a pick up I could make it 1000 gallons for not much more. If you don't mind salvage parts I could build it for considerably less.

 

[Henning]

Where do I park the trailer?

Most people park them on the airport or at home. Me and some buddies bought an old fuel truck and just left it parked on the ramp, no problems, but I did work there as well. We were filling with 100LL for less than half the price at the rack than on the field.

 

[wabower]

I wouldn't do that crap for all the tea in China. There are lots of places to buy reasonably-priced fuel within 40 miles, and a few bucks (or a few hundred) more or less isn't going to change my flying habits anyway.

Most people park them on the airport or at home. Me and some buddies bought an old fuel truck and just left it parked on the ramp, no problems, but I did work there as well. We were filling with 100LL for less than half the price at the rack than on the field.

 

[hindsight2020]

Right, rarely does a gear system failure lead to a gear up landing or even any great hassle. Even when it does lead to a belly landing the only time it becomes an event is when someone tries something stupid like stopping the prop and even then not necessarily either. The whole gear fear/cost is vastly overblown and typically done so by people who have no personal ownership experience just spouting old wives tales like Chicken Little. While issues do exist they are not common or frequent and can be avoided completely at low expense in comparison to the fuel savings which increase with speed. Find me a fixed gear airliner.

Just got back from visiting a good friend of mine, fellow Texan II IP and A&P. Seems like he agrees with you on the Arrow versus 235. The man says he thinks the Arrow would probably fit my mission better and that my concerns over gear maintenance year-to-year and "gear down reliability" is overblown. He made similar arguments to the ones you've posted about. Sticking to the 180 Arrows could prove further cost savings still.

Furthermore, the insurance for us folks with thousands of hours in retracts seems indeed to be a non-issue when compared to the insured value, which I suspected. His main objection seems to be centered about the fuel burn difference being the primary cost offset between the two.

I've flown arrows ad nauseam and they're solid aircraft no doubt. My concerns over the maintenance of the piper swing gear may have been indeed overstated.

For my mission it seems that fuel efficiency is a bigger driver in cost savings than the tradeoffs between cylinder count and extra system complexity. In that regard the arrow gets the edge. Learned something today.

 

[Henning]

I wouldn't do that crap for all the tea in China. There are lots of places to buy reasonably-priced fuel within 40 miles, and a few bucks (or a few hundred) more or less isn't going to change my flying habits anyway.

Mogas to me has more benefits than the price of fuel, but yeah, if it's not worth it to you don't bother. You said it was unavailable in your area, I was just pointing out that there is actually an availability option.

 

[Henning]

Just got back from visiting a good friend of mine, fellow Texan II IP and A&P. Seems like he agrees with you on the Arrow versus 235. The man says he thinks the Arrow would probably fit my mission better and that my concerns over gear maintenance year-to-year and "gear down reliability" is overblown. He made similar arguments to the ones you've posted about. Sticking to the 180 Arrows could prove further cost savings still.

Furthermore, the insurance for us folks with thousands of hours in retracts seems indeed to be a non-issue when compared to the insured value, which I suspected. His main objection seems to be centered about the fuel burn difference being the primary cost offset between the two.

I've flown arrows ad nauseam and they're solid aircraft no doubt. My concerns over the maintenance of the piper swing gear may have been indeed overstated.

For my mission it seems that fuel efficiency is a bigger driver in cost savings than the tradeoffs between cylinder count and extra system complexity. In that regard the arrow gets the edge. Learned something today.

A 180 Arrow is the only one I have flown, and this was loaded with 3 people and my full luggage pack to gross weight, that would cruise at a solid measured 140kts. A Bonanza beats an Arrow though. You get the advantages of both planes bumped up a notch plus you get them in a sweeter package.

 

[Ted]

No doubt it is not as robust as an Aztec which is not as robust as a Baron. None of them however are particularly flimsy or maintenance intensive. I won't take the 310 into rough fields as I would an Aztec or Baron, but I'm not overly worried about the occasional hard landing either. The nice thing about the old 310s (Pre L I believe? Same year where the torque tube issue starts) is they have heavier duty gear components.

I doubt if the Baron is more robust than the Aztec for landing gear.

I didn't say the Twin Cessna gear was flimsy, but it is known for problems and people ending up having double-prop-strikes or damage of some sort. There's always a Wentworth Twin Cessna on eBay that had a nose gear collapse or a main gear fold in. I can't remember the last time I saw an Aztec or Baron in similar condition.

All it takes is a trailer you can pull with a car. For less than $2000 I can build a nice 250-300 gallon twin axle rig with brakes and a pump that you could tow around that area with nothing more than a compact car worth with a $150 hitch from U-Haul and a brake controller. If you have a pick up I could make it 1000 gallons for not much more. If you don't mind salvage parts I could build it for considerably less.

How long will it take the pilot of a MoGas bird to recoup the $2,000? Plus now you have to maintain the trailer.

The only way I'd end up getting into the fuel trucking business would be if I bought a plot of land that I could turn into a strip, and that was the only way to have fuel at my home drone. Even then, I'd have to consider it.

 

[Henning]

I doubt if the Baron is more robust than the Aztec for landing gear.

I didn't say the Twin Cessna gear was flimsy, but it is known for problems and people ending up having double-prop-strikes or damage of some sort. There's always a Wentworth Twin Cessna on eBay that had a nose gear collapse or a main gear fold in. I can't remember the last time I saw an Aztec or Baron in similar condition.



How long will it take the pilot of a MoGas bird to recoup the $2,000? Plus now you have to maintain the trailer.

The only way I'd end up getting into the fuel trucking business would be if I bought a plot of land that I could turn into a strip, and that was the only way to have fuel at my home drone. Even then, I'd have to consider it.

If you save $1.50 a gallon and use 10gph it will take 134 hrs to pay off. Maintenance on a little trailer that moves maybe 100 miles a year? Virtually nothing? Tires once a decade? Brakes every century? We put $1200 into that old fuel truck and it was making a profit quarter way through the second fill and with 5 of us pumping from it and flying a bunch we made out like bandits. Hell, even that old International truck with the Big Red engine, PTO and all the rest of the gear barely cost anything to keep going. Fuel is the big ticket item, significant savings on each gallon coupled with significant fuel flows makes your own bunkering operation highly worthwhile. If you fly 10-20 hrs a year or own a LSA at 4gph, yeah, it's a questionable value if you don't consider the engine advantages and cost reductions of MoGas, but if you're flowing over 10gph and flying a couple hundred hours a year filling at least half of those fills from home, the bunkering op is a no brainier money saver.

 

[Ted]

If you save $1.50 a gallon and use 10gph it will take 134 hrs to pay off. Maintenance on a little trailer that moves maybe 100 miles a year? Virtually nothing? Tires once a decade? Brakes every century? We put $1200 into that old fuel truck and it was making a profit quarter way through the second fill and with 5 of us pumping from it and flying a bunch we made out like bandits. Hell, even that old International truck with the Big Red engine, PTO and all the rest of the gear barely cost anything to keep going. Fuel is the big ticket item, significant savings on each gallon coupled with significant fuel flows makes your own bunkering operation highly worthwhile. If you fly 10-20 hrs a year or own a LSA at 4gph, yeah, it's a questionable value if you don't consider the engine advantages and cost reductions of MoGas, but if you're flowing over 10gph and flying a couple hundred hours a year filling at least half of those fills from home, the bunkering op is a no brainier money saver.

As with anything, mission-oriented. For me, probably about 1/3 of the fuel I buy is from home. I generally have to buy fuel at each stop to make it to the next because of the distance of what I fly. I think overall the cost and hassle make it not worthwhile. Ironically, someone who flies less may decide the extra time is worth it because they're into it for the hobby aspect.

 

[Henning]

??? Why do people feel compelled to justify not doing this? I just pointed out that the option is available everywhere, and you can probably buy it without the road tax, or at least it's usually refundable.

 

[Ted]

??? Why do people feel compelled to justify not doing this? I just pointed out that the option is available everywhere, and you can probably buy it without the road tax, or at least it's usually refundable.

More that we don't see the justification in doing it.

 

[Henning]

More that we don't see the justification in doing it.

Ok, same same.

 

[wabower]

Three weeks ago you were the guy who didn't care about money and only used it to make yourself happy. Now you're wrapped around the axle about some damn-fool gas trailer. GMAB.

Ok, same same.

 

[Henning]

I don't like getting ripped off by oil companies, big deal. There is more to using MoGas to me than saving money though, if I could I would use it because I don't want the lead.

 

[COFlyBoy]

I also like the brick dumb de-rated setup of the 235. It would be less finicky an engine than the Arrow though I presume the consensus on 6 cylinders is you have to accept you'll be pulling one cylinder a year? That could make the annuals just as expensive as the Arrow...

We have an 0-540 on the Cherokee 6. We haven't had a cylinder off since the overhaul over 15 years ago (over 700 hours, and all comps > 77). With an O-540 derated to 235hp the thing will run just fine for a long time, so long as it is not abused.

 

[cirrusmx]

I don't need the load myself nor do I ever land on other than paved strips, so the Arrow II has been very efficient to me.

It's true that the Turbo Arrow (TSIO 360) engine is problematic and expensive to maintain, BUT if you fly it on long legs at high altitudes (over 12,000 feet), the high TAS coupled with 72 gallons of fuel makes it a very efficient cross country machine.

If your normal trip is less than 200 nm, don't get a Turbo Arrow unless you fly mountains a lot.

If your trip is less than 200nm you are better off driving.

 

[Sac Arrow]

If your trip is less than 200nm you are better off driving.

If you could drive 200 NM in a straight line with few stops yes. Put your destination over the mountains (or even between very congested cities) and the plane wins hands down.

 

[cirrusmx]

driving to the airport, getting the plane out of the hangar, pre-flighting, taxiing, taking off, getting vectored, land at the destination, get out of the plane, find a mode of ground transportion and then drive to where ever you where going. You are probably going to end up breaking even on time, maybe saving half an hour, but definitely spending a ton more dollars than driving. Add to the equation weather and thinking about the flight instead of your business during the day and its just not practical. Fun and adventureous, it is.

 

[cirrusmx]

spam can flying is just a better form of golf.

 

[Arrow115]

[QUOTE
A word of caution however. Every arrow I've worked on has had neglected landing gear. Have it checked out before you buy and expect to spend some money on it the first few years.
[/QUOTE]

Hey guys, long time reader first time poster. I jumped in here because I have owned my 73 arrow for a little over a year and just got out of my first annual. I completely agree with this statement. I replaced all of the hydraulic hoses because my mechanic told me that they were factor original. I also resealed the actuators and replaced the springs. They also replaced a lot of other worn hardware in gear to tighten the mains up. My arrow probably needed this gear work for while. Blows my mind what some people will defer to save a buck. I would take a very good look at the gear during prebuy. While alot of needed work wouldnt be a deal killer for me, I would want to know what to expect and how to budget accordingly.

Even with all of the gear work, I still really like my arrow. Its a economical traveler, and I can still load up the girl friend and the dog (along with all of their stuff).

 

[Sac Arrow]

driving to the airport, getting the plane out of the hangar, pre-flighting, taxiing, taking off, getting vectored, land at the destination, get out of the plane, find a mode of ground transportion and then drive to where ever you where going. You are probably going to end up breaking even on time, maybe saving half an hour, but definitely spending a ton more dollars than driving. Add to the equation weather and thinking about the flight instead of your business during the day and its just not practical. Fun and adventureous, it is.

I have two current situations where I travel for business. One is a 200 NM flight over flat land, to which one can "easily" drive. It costs more to fly but so what I get reimbursed. I save a whole lot more than a half hour (ground transportation at the other end isn't a factor) and I'm far happier at the end of the day. Actually I save about two hours on each leg by flying, and about three total for the day factoring in preflight activities.

The other is a 150 NM trip to a destination on the other side of the Sierras. Driving there takes at least six hours, but eight is more the norm. Flying there saves at least one overnight stay, and is by far cheaper when factoring in chargeable hours.

 

[Clark1961]

It's true that the Turbo Arrow (TSIO 360) engine is problematic and expensive to maintain, BUT if you fly it on long legs at high altitudes (over 12,000 feet), the high TAS coupled with 72 gallons of fuel makes it a very efficient cross country machine. /QUOTE]

The TSIO 360 is problematic and expensive if run hard. Keep it at or below 65% power and it does fine. The darn things run hot in the summer though - needs more oil cooling capacity...

 

[Sac Arrow]

It's true that the Turbo Arrow (TSIO 360) engine is problematic and expensive to maintain, BUT if you fly it on long legs at high altitudes (over 12,000 feet), the high TAS coupled with 72 gallons of fuel makes it a very efficient cross country machine. /QUOTE]

The TSIO 360 is problematic and expensive if run hard. Keep it at or below 65% power and it does fine. The darn things run hot in the summer though - needs more oil cooling capacity...

I always ran mine at 65%. I never had an issue with heat though, I was able to keep CHT's 380 or below even on 100 degree days. I did have cowl flaps, might have helped.

 

[Clark1961]

I always ran mine at 65%. I never had an issue with heat though, I was able to keep CHT's 380 or below even on 100 degree days. I did have cowl flaps, might have helped.

I've lusted for a cowl flap on the Frankenkota...

CHTs stay low but oil temps read high. Intercooling and upper deck pressure controller helps.

 

[Jhernandez04]

Instead of continuing off topic... whats the general consensus of the OP's question?

Arrow or 235?

 

[Sac Arrow]

Define general consensus. I already voted Arrow.

 

[wabower]

Unless orange cones, hard rain or a BAW (wreck) or all three, as in our trip last week get in your way. One of the kids lives 212 SM door-to-door, most of the trip is I-35. 4+30 going down last week, 3+09 for the return.

If your trip is less than 200nm you are better off driving.

 

[wabower]

If those are the only two choices, I wouldn't buy either for the trip he described, and therefore abstain.

Instead of continuing off topic... whats the general consensus of the OP's question?

Arrow or 235?

 

[Henning]

If your trip is less than 200nm you are better off driving.

Maybe in Tx, not in SoCal. I lived west of the 405 in Wilmington LA on the Cerritos channel. To leave anywhere but west I had to drive by LGB. If I did, I got in my plane and flew there even to go to Aircraft Spruce which was at Fullerton at the time. Drive to the Valley after work? Have you lost your mind? That's 3 hrs to go 27 miles? Blow me, I'm at VNY or anywhere in the basin inside 20 minutes and let whomever pick me up or grab a courtesy car. Twins are nice over densely populated areas as well.

 

[Anthony]

Maybe in Tx, not in SoCal.

Or around NYC if you have to go anywhere near there or through there. It was either a 1:15 flight or 5:30 - 6:00 drive for me commuting up to Groton, CT every week. So much easier, and nicer to fly. NY/NJ traffic is horrible.

 

[JoshJ]

Chris,

I see your in the woodlands. Where are you based? I'm in Magnolia. I have a 235 now and will be trading for a Saratoga this week. Have you had any other gear issues I should be aware of?

 

[cirrusmx]

Maybe in Tx, not in SoCal. I lived west of the 405 in Wilmington LA on the Cerritos channel. To leave anywhere but west I had to drive by LGB. If I did, I got in my plane and flew there even to go to Aircraft Spruce which was at Fullerton at the time. Drive to the Valley after work? Have you lost your mind? That's 3 hrs to go 27 miles? Blow me, I'm at VNY or anywhere in the basin inside 20 minutes and let whomever pick me up or grab a courtesy car. Twins are nice over densely populated areas as well.

A heli with a pro pilot (chauffer) waiting for you might make more sense to move around short distances and hop above traffic. Tha will definitely save you a lot of time. Where you just hop in and go and then at destination get out and dont worry about anything other than taking ground transportation to your destination. Again, small piston planes are hard to economically justify.

 

[Arrow115]

Chris,

I see your in the woodlands. Where are you based? I'm in Magnolia. I have a 235 now and will be trading for a Saratoga this week. Have you had any other gear issues I should be aware of?

I am based out of KDWH (Hooks). I keep my arrow in a community hangar there. As far as other gear issues, I did replace the nose gear down lock mechanism (don't have the invoice in front of me so terminology may be off) back in January after I didnt get a nose gear down indication. I did eventually get a nose gear down indication after a few cycles but after I got back on the ground I told my mechanic to go through the gear and replace any thing that may even look like it it may need work soon. In the first year of ownership I put around 130 hours on the arrow and that was the only gear problem. The rest of the work that was done was preventative maintenance.

 

[hindsight2020]

If those are the only two choices, I wouldn't buy either for the trip he described, and therefore abstain.

As I said, my flagship mission trip is 416NM. Currently being accomplished in a PA-28-161 with durations between 3.5 and 4.5 One time I did do it in 3.0 but that was me pulling a Christopher Columbus and getting on a 50kt tailwind at 14 err...11.5k going east. It was fun pretending I was rich for an hour watching the 89B read 163KGTS. Three times a month can get somewhat painful. And I do launch IFR on that too. I need to beat 13NMPG in order to be able to upgrade out of the warrior. The two seaters spam cans do it, but they don't have the legs for it non-stop which kills the block time.

I took into consideration the points my buddy made as well as Hennings argument over the perceived expenses of the gear. Doing further research online and understanding these things were fundamentally made as commercial complex trainer, gap-fillers much like the wonky 172RG, I'm still too gunshy to undertake the pop-up expenses of swing gear, particularly when it comes to first year annual. Sure, a thorough pre-buy would help with that, but in my experience pre-buys also are a crapshoot. The piper owner site is riddled with threads upon threads of anecdotes and questions that essentially cast a very different picture of the complexity, hassle and expense of the swing gear. I read those and come back to reality in a way.

I think the safe bet for me is to accept the purchase of a retract as a bona fide basket case if I do ever go that route and adjust the buy offer accordingly to account for taking it in the shorts the first year. Though I completely agree I need not the fuel burn nor the useful load of the 235, I suspect that even with cylinder work required at first annual, the mx expenses of the 235 would come well under that of an Arrow. I dare say probably in line with that of my warrior minus the prop. I agree though, it's a hell of an inefficient way of gaining 45 minutes on each leg by going big engine on the "mission". Upgrading to a measely 20hp more is not cost effective. The archer makes absolute zero dent on my mission and sinks me 20 grand in the hole for less efficiency. People tout it as such a better deal, for me it's always been a downgrade when compared to what I can accomplish with the 160hp mill.

Maybe a Mooney manual gear sample? Shotgun panel (non-sixpack panel, huge pet peeve of mine), gear donuts neglected, prop hub cracking fatigue ADs and the whole steel tubular construction and 50 years of corrosion potential just makes me feel safe and cozy in my predictable warrior.

Grumman Tiger? RVs? Glasairs? Sure. That's probably where the answer lies. But they're going for a lot more and they are RARE. Even the cheetahs people are asking RV money for them. Meh. Inventory was one of my motivators for staying in the Piper line. It's the reason I was able to acquire the warrior as readily as I did.

I've even thought going down the scale on the samples, to a AA-1 with the -320. But now my range goes to hell, even with the tank augmentation STC.

So perhaps I agree. NONE seems to be the answer for this particular mission set. I'm kinda stuck with a warrior for the time being. I'll keep looking at options. 4.0 block times still beats the nine hour drive and doing it commercially takes just as long as driving since both my origin and destination are non-hubs.

It has been an eye-opening discussion for sure. I've learned a lot about airplanes I've only rented or instructed in but never actually owned. It's a love hate relationship I have with the warrior. Single door shenanigans and 4 hours hand flying per leg gets irritating, but the second I look up I realize, I'm stealing every time I go up compared to the variables introduced by the upgrades we've discussed. The thing hasn't let me down yet. Dispatch rate is still 90% (annual bumped it down) in 6 months and 165 hours flown to date. That's incredible for these effin things.

 

[wabower]

As I said, my flagship mission trip is 416NM. Currently being accomplished in a PA-28-161 with durations between 3.5 and 4.5

Agreed. Hence the "abstain" ballot.

One time I did do it in 3.0 but that was me pulling a Christopher Columbus and getting on a 50kt tailwind at 14 err...11.5k going east. It was fun pretending I was rich for an hour watching the 89B read 163KGTS.

I think that's the magic TAS number for your trips.

Three times a month can get somewhat painful.

Three times a year would be almost as bad.

And I do launch IFR on that too.

Yep. Gotta be IFR capable to make those trips with any degree of predictability and comfort.

I need to beat 13NMPG in order to be able to upgrade out of the warrior. The two seaters spam cans do it, but they don't have the legs for it non-stop which kills the block time.

What you really need is an annual budget using miles flown as the constant.

I took into consideration the points my buddy made as well as Hennings argument over the perceived expenses of the gear.

You're overly fixated on individual line-items in the MX budget. Even if you have a gear problem, or a turbo problem or a mag problem or whatever else, you won't have it every year. But you will have something every year, so developing a reasonable MX budget is essential for meaningful comparisons.

Doing further research online and understanding these things were fundamentally made as commercial complex trainer, gap-fillers much like the wonky 172RG, I'm still too gunshy to undertake the pop-up expenses of swing gear, particularly when it comes to first year annual.

The fixation continues . . .

Sure, a thorough pre-buy would help with that, but in my experience pre-buys also are a crapshoot. The piper owner site is riddled with threads upon threads of anecdotes and questions that essentially cast a very different picture of the complexity, hassle and expense of the swing gear.

But at least you're consistent. :wink2:

I think the safe bet for me is to accept the purchase of a retract as a bona fide basket case if I do ever go that route and adjust the buy offer accordingly to account for taking it in the shorts the first year.

And just when I thought you were through beating the dead horse, you gave him one more good whack.

Though I completely agree I need not the fuel burn nor the useful load of the 235, I suspect that even with cylinder work required at first annual, the mx expenses of the 235 would come well under that of an Arrow.

More line-item fixation.

I dare say probably in line with that of my warrior minus the prop.

How many line items are left to go on the annual checklist?

I agree though, it's a hell of an inefficient way of gaining 45 minutes on each leg by going big engine on the "mission". Upgrading to a measely 20hp more is not cost effective. The archer makes absolute zero dent on my mission and sinks me 20 grand in the hole for less efficiency.

This is why you need a budget rather than a laundry list of potential MX issues.

Maybe a Mooney manual gear sample? Shotgun panel (non-sixpack panel, huge pet peeve of mine),

A shop in Denton will rebuild the panel using precision CAD cutter for $2,500. Chump change if everything else suits your fancy.

gear donuts neglected, prop hub cracking fatigue ADs and the whole steel tubular construction and 50 years of corrosion potential just makes me feel safe and cozy in my predictable warrior.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Every breed has its share of ugs.

Grumman Tiger? RVs? Glasairs? Sure. That's probably where the answer lies.

Could be, but at this point you're drawing bullseyes around the bullet holes.

But they're going for a lot more and they are RARE. Even the cheetahs people are asking RV money for them. Meh.

What's the real difference in all-in cost over a year? 5 years?

Inventory was one of my motivators for staying in the Piper line. It's the reason I was able to acquire the warrior as readily as I did.

Every financial analysis should include an eventual sale of the asset. Are the more desirable higher-priced planes selling for a higher percentage of purchase price than the Indians?

I've even thought going down the scale on the samples, to a AA-1 with the -320. But now my range goes to hell, even with the tank augmentation STC.

An excellent reason for discarding them from the prospect list.

So perhaps I agree. NONE seems to be the answer for this particular mission set. I'm kinda stuck with a warrior for the time being. I'll keep looking at options. 4.0 block times still beats the nine hour drive and doing it commercially takes just as long as driving since both my origin and destination are non-hubs.

You've done a lot of good research and sound thinking. The assignment now is to step back from the details and develop a consistent method of side-by-side comparison.

It has been an eye-opening discussion for sure. I've learned a lot about airplanes I've only rented or instructed in but never actually owned. It's a love hate relationship I have with the warrior. Single door shenanigans and 4 hours hand flying per leg gets irritating, but the second I look up I realize, I'm stealing every time I go up compared to the variables introduced by the upgrades we've discussed. The thing hasn't let me down yet. Dispatch rate is still 90% (annual bumped it down) in 6 months and 165 hours flown to date. That's incredible for these effin things.

You're on the right track about the big-picture stuff, now work on an annual budget based on the miles you know you will travel at the block times you can expect to achieve in whichever plane you're using. Add a reasonable estimate of those you will travel (or use hours for the times you fly in circles, such as burger runs or whatever) and consistently apply that usage to whatever you plan to own.

A good way to measure the cost of ownership (vs operations) is to assume each plane you evaluate for budget purposes is 100% financed, and using the same interest rate and length of years for all. Doing so will level the playing field and provide apples-to-apples comparison. This step is purely for comparison and doesn't mean you will borrow all (or any) of the purchase price.

Once you get the model built, plugging in different numbers for different airplanes is easy and you'll be able to see through the maze