Can I really afford a Bonanza / Debonair??

Ben Anderson said:
Yeah I think I really want a Debonairs or older Bo but the costs and nightmare stories have me a little concerned I'm not quite where I need to be budget wise. I was planning about $12k per year to fly about 100 hrs. Any suggestions for other planes that go fast can carry 4 (2 adults and 2 babies). Cheap ongoing maintenance is my goal but I'd like at least 130 knots i think. Might have to go fixed gear or Mooney M20 C. Gotta get thru flight training and CFI work doesn't pay well.
Click to expand...

The real keys to affordable maintenance are (1) find a shop that you can trust (get lots of recommendations, don't just go with whatever shop is at your field), that will do owner-assisted maintenance and that will actually communicate with you, and (2) do as much work as you're capable of doing (and learn to do more). Things tend to get out of hand quickly when owners just toss the keys to the shop and say call me when it's done. Do the grunt work yourself (taking the interior out for annual, opening inspection covers, greasing wheel bearings, lubing and greasing the airframe, cleaning the spark plugs, etc.), source your own parts, be very involved.

In the grand scheme of ownership, retractable gear doesn't really add much cost maintenance-wise. Sure, the gear has to be swung at annual; that takes about 30 minutes. And yes, gear motors occasionally need to be overhauled, but they tend to be pretty robust and last a long time. But don't think for a second that a 150, 172, Tiger, etc. can't absolutely eat your lunch in the maintenance shop. A 150/172/Tiger, etc. can just as easily have a $10k annual if you don't stay involved.
 
You can never "really afford" any plane.. there's just no real justifiable way to make the case that it financially makes sense to own your own plane. With how cheap air travel is there's very little argument. If you get something fast enough to make the whole "but I can get there faster" argument work then you're spending a ton more money

As far as being able to fly your own plane without going broke, that's a different question, and really depends on the standard of living you're used to and the kind of plane you want
 
I think 12K is fine as long as it's in the bank ready for a surprise. If I were spending that budget and ONLY that budget, though, I'd want someone else taking the shocks, or at least sharing them. A flying club or partnership would be my goal.

3 dudes in a debonair is some very inexpensive quality flying. :D Just saying.
 
I've spent more on my 170 then I have on my Bonanza this year.

182? Some oil and gas. Lol
 
Ben Anderson said:
Yeah I think I really want a Debonairs or older Bo but the costs and nightmare stories have me a little concerned I'm not quite where I need to be budget wise. I was planning about $12k per year to fly about 100 hrs. Any suggestions for other planes that go fast can carry 4 (2 adults and 2 babies). Cheap ongoing maintenance is my goal but I'd like at least 130 knots i think. Might have to go fixed gear or Mooney M20 C. Gotta get thru flight training and CFI work doesn't pay well.
Click to expand...
Just my own anecdotal data point ...

In 2003 I sold my 160 hp (well, officially 157.5 hp) Grumman-American Cheetah and bought a nicely-cared-for, but largely original, 1959 K35 Bonanza. We were doing a lot of 1000+ nm (1 way) cross-countries in those days, so it penciled out in terms of performance and range. The Bo had a nearly-new 260 hp IO-470-N, in place of the original 250 hp IO-470-C. It had the old-style two-piece windshield, small rear windows and scatter-gun instrument panel. To be honest, I liked the retro look.

First thing I discovered was that on the long cross-countries, the Bonanza at 155 KTAS used less total fuel than the Cheetah at 120 KTAS. Efficiency does count on long trips. The first two annuals on the Bonanza cost me less than the last two on the Cheetah. Go figure.

The bigger expenditures came trying to update a few things on the Bo that the Cheetah would not have needed -- a new interior, some avionics, engine monitor, etc. The electrical system on the Bo gave me fits and required repeated trips to the shop, until that issue was finally resolved. (Why did the Bo have a new engine and prop? Because the 83-year-old prior owner had a complete electrical system failure and had to crank the landing gear down. It seems he didn't crank it quite far enough, for the nose gear collapsed on landing.)

Then the auxiliary fuel pump started to leak. They don't make that old type of pump any more, and replacing it would have required an STC to modify the installation to accommodate the new-style pump -- a $4,000 job. Fortunately a shop at the opposite corner of the country was able to overhaul the old pump and return it to service.

Then there was the time nothing happened when I put the landing gear switch down at the end of an early-evening flight, and I had to crank the gear down (remembering the prior owner's sudden stop on the runway, though in my case the gear stayed down on landing). I feared a big repair bill, but apparently the old gear motor just needed to have the gunk cleaned out of it, then all was well. Then another time, the flaps didn't work, and the flap motor had to be replaced.

The most unnerving time was when the engine quit when I was operating on the aux tanks. I quickly switched to a main tank and it restarted. Upon landing I checked the aux tanks, and they were still half-full. Turns out it was just a bad O-ring in a fuel cap, and suction on the top of the wing (and a good morning to you, Dr. Bernoulli) stopped the fuel from feeding past the checkvalve.

Fortunately I had no problems with the magnesium tail feathers or the fuel tank bladders on this airplane.

Overall I was quite lucky and avoided catastrophic expenses. I really enjoyed the airplane, but after five years with the Bonanza I decided to opt for something simpler and traded it in on a factory-new CubCrafters Sport Cub.
 
Even more so than Navions, there's a lot of variation. Bonanzas span more than five decades of production and many of the older ones have been highly modified as time went on.
First thing I'd recommend is joining the American Bonanza Society. You'll also want to look at the BeechTalk website. Both will give you way more extensive information that we have here.

There are various propeller options on the Bonanza. The electric Beech propeller isn't bad, but its limited in range. The middle year Bonanzas have the X and V hub Hartzell props. There's a repetitive AD on these if they've not been "upgraded" to the single shoulder design. One thing to look at when shopping.

The engines go from 185 on up. The one I wouldn't be buying right now is the E-225. This one is getting hard to overhaul. The IO-470 is the later version of the same engine. Of course, they go up to the IO-550 (I had one of these off an A36 in my Navion).

Bo's HP for HP will be faster than the 182, but the loading is a bit more finicky.

As for maintenance costs, swinging the gear isn't that big of a deal If you're comparing it to a fixed gear 182, you're only adding a small amount. If you're talking about a 182RG, the Bo is a hands-down winner. The Cessna single-engine gear system is a nightmare in my opinion.
 
Pilawt said:
Just my own anecdotal data point ...

In 2003 I sold my 160 hp (well, officially 157.5 hp) Grumman-American Cheetah and bought a nicely-cared-for, but largely original, 1959 K35 Bonanza. We were doing a lot of 1000+ nm (1 way) cross-countries in those days, so it penciled out in terms of performance and range. The Bo had a nearly-new 260 hp IO-470-N, in place of the original 250 hp IO-470-C. It had the old-style two-piece windshield, small rear windows and scatter-gun instrument panel. To be honest, I liked the retro look.

First thing I discovered was that on the long cross-countries, the Bonanza at 155 KTAS used less total fuel than the Cheetah at 120 KTAS. Efficiency does count on long trips. The first two annuals on the Bonanza cost me less than the last two on the Cheetah. Go figure.

The bigger expenditures came trying to update a few things on the Bo that the Cheetah would not have needed -- a new interior, some avionics, engine monitor, etc. The electrical system on the Bo gave me fits and required repeated trips to the shop, until that issue was finally resolved. (Why did the Bo have a new engine and prop? Because the 83-year-old prior owner had a complete electrical system failure and had to crank the landing gear down. It seems he didn't crank it quite far enough, for the nose gear collapsed on landing.)

Then the auxiliary fuel pump started to leak. They don't make that old type of pump any more, and replacing it would have required an STC to modify the installation to accommodate the new-style pump -- a $4,000 job. Fortunately a shop at the opposite corner of the country was able to overhaul the old pump and return it to service.

Then there was the time nothing happened when I put the landing gear switch down at the end of an early-evening flight, and I had to crank the gear down (remembering the prior owner's sudden stop on the runway, though in my case the gear stayed down on landing). I feared a big repair bill, but apparently the old gear motor just needed to have the gunk cleaned out of it, then all was well. Then another time, the flaps didn't work, and the flap motor had to be replaced.

The most unnerving time was when the engine quit when I was operating on the aux tanks. I quickly switched to a main tank and it restarted. Upon landing I checked the aux tanks, and they were still half-full. Turns out it was just a bad O-ring in a fuel cap, and suction on the top of the wing (and a good morning to you, Dr. Bernoulli) stopped the fuel from feeding past the checkvalve.

Fortunately I had no problems with the magnesium tail feathers or the fuel tank bladders on this airplane.

Overall I was quite lucky and avoided catastrophic expenses. I really enjoyed the airplane, but after five years with the Bonanza I decided to opt for something simpler and traded it in on a factory-new CubCrafters Sport Cub.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And what calendar years was this ownership tenure?
 
I have owned an F33A Bonanza for just over a year. It is about to go in for its 2nd annual next week. Last years annual was expensive, about $14k. We had some stuff installed (Engine preheater, 406b ELT), but the rest was gripes. The big one was that the gear seals needed to be replaced, and on a Bonanza, the main gear has to actually come off the airplane to change the seals. We're having some stuff installed this year as well, but we are anticipating a much cheaper annual this time, fingers crossed.

Also had some avionics work done last year as well. We had a Garmin GTX345 ADS-B box and a Garmin G5 HSI installed. At the same time they removed a Northstar M3 GPS and the ADF. There were some wiring issues behind the panel that took some labor to sort out, which added to the bill. It came to about $20k.

So it was a very expensive year, but I regret none of it. This airplane is amazing, and so far there are zero regrets about buying it. What also helps is that I have a partner, so the bills are a little more palatable. 182's are great airplanes, and the short body Bonanzas have their limitations, but boy are they fun to fly.
 
Unless you live on a postage stamp dirt strip surrounded by trees, I have no clue why anyone would want a 182 over a Bonanza. 182s can be even MORE overpriced, form carb ice like my expensive freezer forms regular ice, and even the RGs can only manage MAYBE being as fast as a 470 powered Deb if they are rigged right. The Bonanza is more comfortable, more stable, better in the soup and looks better. Also, every mechanic knows how to work on either of them, so it isn't some super specialized thing.

Since so many were made, you get Bos in every price range too.

OneCharlieTango said:
Short answer: if you can afford a 182, you can afford Bonanza.

A little longer: in 8 years of Bonanza ownership, 100% of the unplanned maintenance I had was either under the cowling or in the panel, so the 182 will cost just as much. Insurance will be more. But even if it's twice as much, that's $3000 instead of $1500. If your budget is that tight, take a step down the aviation ladder and get a Tiger, saving on fuel, oil, maintenance, and insurance. 182 vs Bo annuals will be within spitting distance of each other.
Click to expand...

A Tiger isn't a step down from anything, especially a 182. I leave all but the newest, best rigged 182s in my chemtrails in the Tiger, while burning 3+ gallons less an hour and having a plane that doesn't handle like a dump truck and can fly in bumpy air.

Tantalum said:
You can never "really afford" any plane.. there's just no real justifiable way to make the case that it financially makes sense to own your own plane. With how cheap air travel is there's very little argument. If you get something fast enough to make the whole "but I can get there faster" argument work then you're spending a ton more money

As far as being able to fly your own plane without going broke, that's a different question, and really depends on the standard of living you're used to and the kind of plane you want
Click to expand...

Lol, you wanna reevaluate those thoughts about cheap, convenient air travel based on current events?
 
N1120A said:
I have no clue why anyone would want a 182 over a Bonanza
Click to expand...
I have no idea why anybody would want a 182, period. Are there really that many people who want to turn their airplanes into bush planes flying in and out of 800 foot dirt strips..? Or is this more like the people who buy a Jeep but the most off-roading it ever sees is parking in a dirt lot somewhere?

For certain missions the 182 is awesome.. otherwise.. it's a heavier 172 with a bigger engine
 
It's a UL thing. They can carry 4 and stuff with full tanks. Plus the Bush flying. Otherwise, I see zero point. Also, they're cult priced, though you can find some ancient ones in good shape for better prices.
 
Right but how often do people plan to fly 4-5+ hrs with four people.. the full fuel payload is an odd metric by which to measure a plane.. most people fly tabs-ish.. no?
 
Just to share another data point, I’m finishing up my second year of F33A ownership. My total maintenance cost has averaged $6K/year, the big ticket items all being gear related (strut reseal, seals, gear motor). I paid a premium price for a pristine aircraft: 1991 airframe with under 2000 hours, a newish engine/prop, and all kinds of modern panel upgrades. I haven’t regretted a moment of it.

Before the Bo, I was in a 182 partnership...to me, there’s no comparison. The 182 wasn’t a bad airplane, but it felt like a grown-up 172 to me, where the Bo feels like a go-anywhere travel airplane. I make the 500nm NC to NY trip regularly, and the Bo is an hour faster on less fuel while being easier to fly. The 182 was a workhorse, but when I look at my logbook, the Bo’s been from its home base in NC to everywhere from Maine to Florida and Chicago to Dallas. And every moment with a smile on my face...
 
I took my airplane to OSH last year. It took me about 11.5 hours round trip. A guy from the flying club that I was part of prior to buying the airplane also went to OSH. It took him 19 hours round trip. I did some really rough math, and I figured out it saved me $200 in direct operating costs vs taking the 172.
 
Tantalum said:
I have no idea why anybody would want a 182, period. Are there really that many people who want to turn their airplanes into bush planes flying in and out of 800 foot dirt strips..? Or is this more like the people who buy a Jeep but the most off-roading it ever sees is parking in a dirt lot somewhere?

For certain missions the 182 is awesome.. otherwise.. it's a heavier 172 with a bigger engine
Click to expand...

If I am an infrequent or indifferent driver, and I learned to drive in a Corolla, the Camry would be enticing.
 
Vince R said:
The 182 wasn’t a bad airplane, but it felt like a grown-up 172 to me, where the Bo feels like a go-anywhere travel airplane.
Click to expand...
That sums it up well. And in my (sometimes not to humble) opinion the 210 and SR22 are good analogs for the Bo
 
Tantalum said:
Right but how often do people plan to fly 4-5+ hrs with four people.. the full fuel payload is an odd metric by which to measure a plane.. most people fly tabs-ish.. no?
Click to expand...
I think the idea is to fly 3 hours to someplace without gas and then still have enough to be able to fly back to someplace with gas.
 
Groundpounder said:
I took my airplane to OSH last year. It took me about 11.5 hours round trip. A guy from the flying club that I was part of prior to buying the airplane also went to OSH. It took him 19 hours round trip. I did some really rough math, and I figured out it saved me $200 in direct operating costs vs taking the 172.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s about MPG or dollars per mile. Per hour, my Bo is only a little less than running a 182, but since it goes maybe 40nm further in that hour, a given trip tends to be a lot less expensive in the Bo than in the 182. In fact, a 100 hour flying year in the Bo might have required 130 hours in the 182...that’s a difference of maybe 600 gallons of fuel - maybe $3500 a year, depending on what you pay for gas. In other words, enough to make the maintenance difference a wash, and that’s before you think of the value of your time.
 
asicer said:
I think the idea is to fly 3 hours to someplace without gas and then still have enough to be able to fly back to someplace with gas.
Click to expand...
mine won't do that......without tip tanks. Mine does about 3.5 hrs of cruise with about 1hr remaining for reserves.
 
Tantalum said:
I have no idea why anybody would want a 182, period.
Click to expand...

Easy answer: 2 doors, ample head/shoulder room, "easy" child seat placement (2x for me,) easy to get kids into/out of by either parent, 1100+ useful, every mechanic knows 'em, and high wing in the rain.
 
Getting into a 182 is going to be easier than a low wing. And as mentioned the two doors, etc.
 
I like the 182 just fine. What I don't like are the Bonanza like prices for one that's 40 years old.
 
asicer said:
I think the idea is to fly 3 hours to someplace without gas and then still have enough to be able to fly back to someplace with gas.
Click to expand...
Thanks, upload_2020-5-18_12-53-39.png
There's certainly a role the 182 is fantastic in. But I doubt the majority of people who hold a pilot's license and are in the market to buy a plane have that kind of mission in mind, yet the prices would seem to dictate that this is where all the demand is. There are *very* few airports that don't at least have self serve gas. This implies that people are really going off the beaten path.. which *some* certainly do, but most really don't

wheaties said:
2 doors
Click to expand...
WDD said:
Getting into a 182 is going to be easier than a low wing. And as mentioned the two doors, etc
Click to expand...
RE:high wings - everyone's says they're easier to get into.. maybe for some, but I personally having to duck down and crawl or stoop under a wing to get inside, and then have zero upward, minimal forward, and only downwards side visibility. Plus, I would imagine the slight inconvenience some people find with climbing over a wing to be more than offset by not needing a ladder and climbing up on top of a wing to put gas in the plane. The 172/182 are absolute beasts to self serve fuel
RE: 2-doors. I totally agree, 100%. And for a long time if I flew with non pilots I'd bite the bullet and rent a 172 or 182 just for the two door thing. But if we're talking PURCHASE, there are plenty of planes out there with more than one door, and they're not all super expensive. Outside of the Bonanza the Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga would be my vote every day over the 182.. heck even the Traumahawk and several "entry model" Beech have two doors
 
Hangar, Insurance, property tax,and Annual are fixed expenses. Repairs are as needed. For me, hangar is 300/month or 3600 per year. Insurance is 2100 per year, Property tax runs $800 per year. Annual is $2500 plus any repairs. In a normal year, repairs are another 1000 to 3000. So before fuel, I expect to pay out $10,000 to $12,000 annually. Fuel is based on 15 GPH and $5 per hour, so 75 per hour. So if I fly 100 hours, the total hourly cost is something like $175 to $195 per hour. Can I justify it, no, but I never have tried to. It is what I want to do, so it is purely a rationalization. I plan to spend my adult kid's inheritance.
 
Tantalum said:
Right but how often do people plan to fly 4-5+ hrs with four people.. the full fuel payload is an odd metric by which to measure a plane.. most people fly tabs-ish.. no?
Click to expand...

I almost never fly with tabs unless I have a weight reason to do so.

John Collins said:
Hangar, Insurance, property tax,and Annual are fixed expenses. Repairs are as needed. For me, hangar is 300/month or 3600 per year. Insurance is 2100 per year, Property tax runs $800 per year. Annual is $2500 plus any repairs. In a normal year, repairs are another 1000 to 3000. So before fuel, I expect to pay out $10,000 to $12,000 annually. Fuel is based on 15 GPH and $5 per hour, so 75 per hour. So if I fly 100 hours, the total hourly cost is something like $175 to $195 per hour. Can I justify it, no, but I never have tried to. It is what I want to do, so it is purely a rationalization. I plan to spend my adult kid's inheritance.
Click to expand...

15 gallons an hour? For a 135 knot airplane? No thanks.
 
I cruise at 12.5 GPH for 165 knots. I can cruise at 175 Knots if II burn more fuel or at 135 Knots probably closer to 9 GPH. 15 GPH includes ground time, vectors, climb at higher fuel and is a conservative value.
 
For me that's one thing I like about a Bo or Deb, the ability to throttle back and enjoy a lower GPH for local burger hunting or cruise at the normal higher speed and see the ground go by. Right now I'm enjoying the experimental side of flying with a Thorp T18 but for my usual SoCal to SF Bay Area trip it just does not have enough range or cargo-carrying ability with a 2nd person onboard so im going to have to upsize the airplane soon!
 
Ben Anderson said:
Yeah I think I really want a Debonairs or older Bo but the costs and nightmare stories have me a little concerned I'm not quite where I need to be budget wise. I was planning about $12k per year to fly about 100 hrs. Any suggestions for other planes that go fast can carry 4 (2 adults and 2 babies). Cheap ongoing maintenance is my goal but I'd like at least 130 knots i think. Might have to go fixed gear or Mooney M20 C. Gotta get thru flight training and CFI work doesn't pay well.
Click to expand...

One data point. 1965 S35 Bonanza. Insurance is $1,380 for $100k hull value. Annual was a bit under $3,000 last year. Land lease (I own my hangar) is $125/mo. I change my own oil but figure four per year, one of which is included in the annual amount, $100 each since I put in the full 12 quarts plus a filter. Fuel is about $4.50/gallon on average and I burn 12.5 GPH LOP which gives me 165-170 KTAS depending on weight and density altitude. I flew 125 hours last year in this airplane.

$1,380 - Insurance
$3,000 - Annual
$1,500 - "Hangar"
$300 - Oil & filter
$7,000 - Fuel

+/- $13,000 all in last year.

That's +/- $100/hour or about 65¢ per NM.
 
John Collins said:
I cruise at 12.5 GPH for 165 knots. I can cruise at 175 Knots if II burn more fuel or at 135 Knots probably closer to 9 GPH. 15 GPH includes ground time, vectors, climb at higher fuel and is a conservative value.
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought you meant a 182.
 
Ben Anderson said:
Is there an STC for the Debs to be Mogas or how does that work? Are they all capable of it from the factory?
Click to expand...

Hey Ben. Sorry I missed your post, haven't been on the board for a couple weeks.

If you are looking to fly on a budget (I am certainly in that category). You can not go wrong, IMHO, with an autofuel capable Debonair (225 hp). I'm paying $1.75 for 87 Octane ethanol-free gas at the local station. You can see my fuel tank setup in my profile picture. 100LL is $4.35 currently at my local airport. I'm saving ~60% on fuel. My hourly fuel costs are running $25/hr right now. That's assuming 14 gph all-in (taxi, takeoff etc). I plan on 145-150 KTAS at ~65% power.

The IO470K and J are about as reliable as you can get in the Continental realm. Do not be afraid to buy one with a higher time engine. I bought mine at just under 1500 hrs SFRM. Well over 1600 hrs now and still running great. I figure every hour I get out of the engine now is a "freebie". I will say if you plan to fly at gross weight in hot weather regularly, or in the mountains, you might want more HP. I've flown at gross in mine many times but I'm close to sea level and generally avoid the middle of the day in the summer.

I'm expecting my annual to be $1200 this year. Last years was about $3200 but it was my first annual with the plane so I expected there would be some items that needed addressing.

Feel free to PM me if you want to chat.

IMG_20200516_133613021.jpg
 
Slightly on topic - how do you get Mo Gas to your plane? You stop by the local gas station on the way to the airport with your large tank on a trailer or back of your pick up? Do you store gas in your hanger? Do you fuel in your hanger or drag a fuel trailer out to the ramp?

How do you get Mo Gas at your destination air port? Or do you just buy LL?
 
WDD said:
Slightly on topic - how do you get Mo Gas to your plane? You stop by the local gas station on the way to the airport with your large tank on a trailer or back of your pick up? Do you store gas in your hanger? Do you fuel in your hanger or drag a fuel trailer out to the ramp?

How do you get Mo Gas at your destination air port? Or do you just buy LL?
Click to expand...

I mounted a 90 gal DOT approved tank to an old Harbor Freight trailer I had. See profile pic. I keep the trailer in my hangar (empty). After a flight, I know exactly how much fuel I used from my EDM700 engine monitor. With this information in hand, I hook up the trailer and head to the gas station and get the exact amount of fuel I need and pump it in the airplane! I have to pull the airplane out of the hangar to fuel it. Then the empty tank goes back in the hangar. No gas is stored in the hangar. Autogas is not as stable as avgas which is why I always keep the Deb topped off (80 gal) and never store gas in the storage tank.

Generally I just buy 100LL when I need gas on the road. Usually, its not worth going out of my way to find an airport that has it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top