More expensive: One or Two?

A

AA5Bman

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
822
Display Name
Display name:
He who ironically no longer flies an AA5B
Here's a showerthought for you: what do you think is more expensive to own and operate, assuming the same total number of hours flown in a year: two planes that cost "x", or one plane that costs 2x? Like, two $100,000 planes vs one $200,000 plane? Or one $65,000 plane and one $35,000 plane vs. one $100,000 plane?

Pick your planes and discuss. I'm thinking a 182 + 2-seat experimental vs. a nice T210. And... I'm really not sure!
 
PS... I'm totally gonna use whatever I get outta this to justify the second plane to the wife.
 
With two

Insurance will be more.
Hangar space will cost more.
Annuals will cost more
Adsb compliance will cost more
Your chance for a new AD is twice as high
Your chance for something to break is twice as high

Your dispatch rate is theoretical double.
Stagger your annuals and you’re never down

But, as my mechanic told me. If you own two to hedge against down time, you’ll fly the one that’s working and the other will sit broken for years..... looking in the hangars around here, I think he’s right.
 
Silly question......






Answer is.....





Don't EVER balance the checkbook and she will never be able to figure it out (Nor will you for that matter)



And you aint got a hair on your back if you don't go buy two planes neither....
 
AA5Bman said:
Here's a showerthought for you: what do you think is more expensive to own and operate, assuming the same total number of hours flown in a year: two planes that cost "x", or one plane that costs 2x? Like, two $100,000 planes vs one $200,000 plane? Or one $65,000 plane and one $35,000 plane vs. one $100,000 plane?

Pick your planes and discuss. I'm thinking a 182 + 2-seat experimental vs. a nice T210. And... I'm really not sure!
Click to expand...

If one has a very high hourly cost, and one has a very low operating cost, and your cost of hangaring/tiedown is low, and you fly the low hourly cost airplane much more than the high hourly cost airplane, then maybe having two would be less expensive. That's a lot of "and"s and I really doubt you'd find a real world example where two are not more expensive than one.

It's really hard to save money by buying something.
 
Salty said:
With two

Insurance will be more.
Hangar space will cost more.
Annuals will cost more
Adsb compliance will cost more
Your chance for a new AD is twice as high
Your chance for something to break is twice as high
Click to expand...


I dunno, would it really be more though? For instance, look at insurance. 182 insurance could be $500 + I dunno for experimental, but let's say $1200. T210 would be $2500 easily. Hangar space would definitely be more, good thing I only tie-down!

btw, I got a recently quote for a $50,000 182 for $475 or so FYI.
 
AA5Bman said:
I dunno, would it really be more though? For instance, look at insurance. 182 insurance could be $500 + I dunno for experimental, but let's say $1200. T210 would be $2500 easily. Hangar space would definitely be more, good thing I only tie-down!

btw, I got a recently quote for a $50,000 182 for $475 or so FYI.
Click to expand...
Owning two planes in the elements? I couldn’t do it to one plane, let alone two.
 
FormerHangie said:
It's really hard to save money by buying something.
Click to expand...
There are exceptions.
iu
 
I have an RV-4 for fun acro and quick day trips with an occasional longer overnight trips. I have a J-3, well, because it is a J-3 and I learned to fly in one and they are just fun to go play in the evenings. Not to mention I inherited it from my dad. My brother got the one we both learned to fly in.

Formerly, my 30'40' hangar cost was the same for one plane as it was two since I rented the entire hangar for one price. Then I had to move airports and price increase since rental there was by the plane. Annuals are relatively in expensive for each, except for this year when both wanted more attention, but still only about $1500-2000 vs normal $300-500. Insurance is pretty reasonable. Hull coverage for each valued at $40K is $777/RV-4 and $757 for J-3.
 
You're pretty much going to end up with two pretty basic planes vs. one complex plane. Two 172s vs. a M20k. A 182 and a Rans vs. a 210. Two M20Ks vs. one nice Cirrus. I could see two 172 annuals being less expensive than a single M20k annual. A 182 annual plus a Rans condition inspection being less than a single 210 annual. Same for insurance. Fuel consumption will essentially always be lower in the two-plane scenario assuming same total hours flown. Total oil changes will be lower (probably, unless you do them calendar-based), etc.
 
AA5Bman said:
I dunno, would it really be more though? For instance, look at insurance. 182 insurance could be $500 + I dunno for experimental, but let's say $1200. T210 would be $2500 easily. Hangar space would definitely be more, good thing I only tie-down!

btw, I got a recently quote for a $50,000 182 for $475 or so FYI.
Click to expand...

So you're looking at something like a $50,000 182 and a $50,000 - $70,000 EAB, versus a $120,000 T210? I would think that lower purchase price T210 might eat your lunch, maintenance wise, so yeah, two simple planes could be less expensive for you since you're leaving them outdoors.

If you want to make your point, you could compare a older Skylane + a Sonex, compared to a $100,000 421 (they do exist) and I'm sure you'd come out ahead on the two planes. But that's really a silly comparison.
 
I had an old Baron and a 85 hp champ that cost me the same yearly as what I spend on my Sloerria currently. Amazing what 15 years and inflation of fixed prices can do. The champ and Baron haven't moved in price since I sold them, but all the other costs have gone up so much that having a hangar CI of 28 is just dumb when a CI of 4 costs so much less now.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 
If you're going to have two planes they should have different missions.

My "retirement hangar" will have my current plane and probably a Lance. In your question scenario I can get a nice Arrow for about the same price as my RV, and that could be a good way to go. Totally different planes to fly.
 
The better option is to find a good partner for the more expensive “traveling” plane and then own the smaller fun plane solo.

Well as a Saratoga owner that’s at least something I’ve toyed with. Don’t get me wrong I can pull out the Toga for a solo ride or to take a friend around the pattern but it sure would be cool to have something a little more efficient to do those “fun flights”. I could buy a solid tail dragger for half the value of my Toga.

Owning 2 planes outright solo. Nope. Gonna be more expensive. Always.
 
What possible correlation is there between a plane's purchase price and its operating costs?
 
Buy only the cheapest one of the three. It will probably end up costing more than you expected the most expensive one to cost you.
 
FormerHangie said:
If one has a very high hourly cost, and one has a very low operating cost, and your cost of hangaring/tiedown is low, and you fly the low hourly cost airplane much more than the high hourly cost airplane, then maybe having two would be less expensive. That's a lot of "and"s and I really doubt you'd find a real world example where two are not more expensive than one.

It's really hard to save money by buying something.
Click to expand...


Just checking, are we talking airplanes or wives?
 
If your name implies you already have a Tiger, why is this even a question?
 
I’ve never heard of an airplane with a low hourly cost either. Then there was the tie down cost thing as well as cost comparison to determine the cheapest one.

Just checking.
 
schmookeeg said:
What possible correlation is there between a plane's purchase price and its operating costs?
Click to expand...

Easy. The purchase price is ALWAYS the cheapest part of the aircraft ownership experience. Shortly after euphoria gives way to brutal realty (in the form of the first post-purchase invoice from your friendly local mechanic). I think this is Newton's Fourth Law, discovered after he ate the apple. ;)

To the OP, as someone who has two airplanes I can state with certainty there are little to zero economies of scale in this game. :eek: Fixed costs are a material part of private aircraft ownership (e.g. all the costs that are unrelated to hours flown). There's little sharing of those between multiple planes. Even multiple plane insurance discounts are minor compared to the increased total for two planes.

I own a 6-place twin and a 2-seat tandem taildragger precisely because both are impossible to rent in this region if you want to do any amount of serious flying in either type. Plain vanilla low hp 4-place singles are readily available and usually makes little sense to own one over renting around here. That doesn't mean it makes sense to do that everywhere; I am only referring to my area.
 
bflynn said:
I’ve never heard of an airplane with a low hourly cost either. Then there was the tie down cost thing as well as cost comparison to determine the cheapest one.

Just checking.
Click to expand...

Speaking of tie down/hangarage cost, man, an airplane is downright cheap compared to a wife. The airplane is perfectly satisfied with a hangar, which goes for $400 - $500 a month around here, while a wife wants a house. Ours would probably rent for $2700 or so, and then wives like things like kitchen renovations, which cost as much as an engine overhaul.:eek:

Before I got married, I used to race cars and I thought that was expensive. It was, but compared to the cost of a wife it was cheap.
 
Sheesh between oil changes, inspections, certifications, database updates, alt and trans certs, VOR accuracy test, I couldn't imagine maintaining two IFR capable airplanes. Now if one was an IFR cross country machine and the other a local play toy that may be different. One plane will always be cheaper though unless you are talking a Luscombe and a Cub compared to a TBM..
 
arkvet said:
The better option is to find a good partner for the more expensive “traveling” plane and then own the smaller fun plane solo.

Well as a Saratoga owner that’s at least something I’ve toyed with. Don’t get me wrong I can pull out the Toga for a solo ride or to take a friend around the pattern but it sure would be cool to have something a little more efficient to do those “fun flights”. I could buy a solid tail dragger for half the value of my Toga.

Owning 2 planes outright solo. Nope. Gonna be more expensive. Always.
Click to expand...
Heck, even the slsa's they had in the last EAA magazine were pretty cool. I'd consider partnering on one of those for 15k/partner or so (2 way) or even doing a 4 way on the thing and have each partner into it for 7k for your little lunch runs.

Honestly, the ideal would be to have a brother or something and split 2-3 between you (a traveler, a seaplane and maybe a powered trike). If I could find a group of 2-3 pilots I could see doing that to have a nice "stable" of planes
 
MIFlyer said:
Heck, even the slsa's they had in the last EAA magazine were pretty cool. I'd consider partnering on one of those for 15k/partner or so (2 way) or even doing a 4 way on the thing and have each partner into it for 7k for your little lunch runs.

Honestly, the ideal would be to have a brother or something and split 2-3 between you (a traveler, a seaplane and maybe a powered trike). If I could find a group of 2-3 pilots I could see doing that to have a nice "stable" of planes
Click to expand...

The rule of thumb is buy a plane that will cover 90% of your missions, and rent for the other 10%.
 
Guys guys guys (and gals) - obviously it’s more expensive to own two similar planes that one of those two.

It’s just a fun thought experiment. It was two planes at that individually cost half of their comparison so that the same total purchase price has been invested. If you wanted to get mathy, you could put it another way: do operating costs grow in a linear fashion with purchase price, or more, or less?
 
arkvet said:
The better option is to find a good partner for the more expensive “traveling” plane and then own the smaller fun plane solo.

Well as a Saratoga owner that’s at least something I’ve toyed with. Don’t get me wrong I can pull out the Toga for a solo ride or to take a friend around the pattern but it sure would be cool to have something a little more efficient to do those “fun flights”. I could buy a solid tail dragger for half the value of my Toga.

Owning 2 planes outright solo. Nope. Gonna be more expensive. Always.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I did. I have a partner in a Cherokee Six for family missions and got a Cherokee 140 for solo flying. It worked out great.
 
They also have a 17 hour weekly minimum. So a cirrus for a week is 380 per hour times 17 hours.

Cool planes but wouldn’t help someone like me


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
MIFlyer said:
in my market you can't rent anything bigger than a 4 seat single. I've never understood this. what markets have FIKI twins on the rental line?
Click to expand...

And who rents a twin to someone that only flies one occasionally? o_O

Plus then there is the insurance coverage for that.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Um, that's a four-seat single, not a FIKI twin. (OK, it's a FIKI four-seat single, but still...)

And, those rates are ridiculous. For that much, I'd go for the Vision jet instead.
Click to expand...

They have one of those two, but not at that rate. Their Vision Jet rents for $1,345 / hr. + Vision Jet Experience Director ($550 - half day or $1,050 - full day). :eek:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Um, that's a four-seat single, not a FIKI twin. (OK, it's a FIKI four-seat single, but still...)

And, those rates are ridiculous. For that much, I'd go for the Vision jet instead.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a twin. But if $500 per hour is too much money, what would you consider a fair price for this FIKI twin, and what would that be? A late model Baron? Would you be willing to rent someone an airplane for flight into ice, and if you were, how much experience would you (and your insurer) require? Even a lowly VFR only pilot like me knows that flying into icy IFR is for experienced, current pilots only.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top