Why fly when you can beat the air into submission?

The DPE from when I did my multi-engine rating is also well known as being the area's big helicopter guy. At the request of some viewers, I decided to try and get the numbers on a typical private helicopter.  Oh my.

I present to you the "Affordable" Bell 47.

Image Courtesy of Wikipedia User: Meggar



Anyone looking for a DPE in the South Wisconsin area, I highly recommend Chris Anderson. His checkride was thorough but fair, and although I wasn't taught anything during the practical I still learned quite a bit during the ride when he posed a few scenarios I hadn't previously thought about and was required to respond.

Anyways, on to the helicopter!  The Bell 47 is considered by many to be the Cessna 172 of the helicopter fleet. Used by civilians and foreign militaries, this two seater really is one of the affordable entry-level helos out there.  It has an average asking price of $95,000 for used and airworthy.  However, where an airplane's flight characteristics hinge on only a few simple moving parts which generally operate independent of each other, a helicopter is a ballet of machinery where all it takes is one bad actor to spoil the scene. If you intend to buy one, you need to have a very knowledgeable A&P with expertise in this specific model. Otherwise you can expect to nearly double the labor estimates in this post.

Not only will a good A&P know the mechanics of this particular model, but they'll be well versed in the sea of paperwork involved in helicopter records.

To quote Chris, "Buying a helicopter is the cheapest part of owning [one]."

Let's start with the annual.  Assuming nothing is wrong, the base-rate inspection on a Bell 47 will run about $4,000 (40 hours of labor, so being an A&P in this case is a very good thing).  The parts are very expensive, too. If you find at annual that your main rotor blades have reached their service life limit, new blades will cost about $15,000 to overhaul on the wood rotors (note: this isn't a recommended time between overhauls, a service limit means it is mandatory; also they're no longer available so eventually you'll have to go to the metal rotors).  If you have the metal rotors then expect to spend $50,000 every 5,000 hours: they're service-life limited and can only be rebuilt (no overhauls). Simple root-end repairs which are common for former agricultural planes will run about $6,500. Ag birds spend a lot of time kicking up debris, which is a great way to beat up your blades, just think about a fixed-wing on a gravel taxiway.

The Bell 47 Chris flew was powered by a Lycoming VO-435 which had an overhaul time of 1200 hours, as does the airframe itself. The engine and airframe overhaul will typically run a combined cost of $125,000. If you're willing to go through the paperwork required and use mid-life parts, that cost can sometimes be brought down to about $80,000.

Any key item to owning a Bell 47 is insurance. While I was able to get ample quotes regarding airplane insurance during my research for other posts, this one was extremely difficult.  In fact, I wasn't able to find anyone who would even quote me the insurance costs, so I'll have to go by the experience of others.  Liability-only coverage for this aircraft (No Hull Coverage)  costs right around $6,000 per year.  Add hull coverage for commercial/instructional flights makes the Insurance Coverage $20,000 per Year.

Close-up view of the Bell 47G

Operating Costs with Minimum Maintenance Reserve: $223/hour

• $10.00 New main rotor after 4,000 hours
• $3.50 Tail rotor rebuild after 4,000 hours
• $105 Engine and Airframe overhaul after 1,200 hours
• $90 15gph fuel burn at $6.00/gal
• $3 Quart of oil every 2 hours (not uncommon, so let's figure it in)
• $2 Oil change every 25 hours
• $9 Rotor grease job every 12 hours (or after being flown in the rain)

Fixed Costs Broken Down Monthly: $3130/month

• $335 Annual Inspection
• $1,675 Insurance
• $400 Hangar (You will definitely want to protect your asset with a hangar on this one)
• $720 If you financed this aircraft with 10% down for 6% interest over 15 years

Rental: The Bell 47G will typically cost $500/hr wet.
When you look at the breakdown of costs for this two-seater, that is not a bad price for renting; in this case the renter definitely comes out ahead. We didn't even account for any of the potential premature maintenance items. 

Sometimes the real cost of ownership can be eye-opening like my Piper Apache; other times it can help us realize the dream isn't as far off as we though like in my Affordable Plane article.  Then there are cost analysis like this which can put into perspective just how diverse General Aviation can truly be.  From the Piper Cub owner who likes to putt around the pattern for $15/hour all the way to the Bell 47 owner who paid a mortgage equivalent to a $500,000 home without flying a single hour.  There's a place in aviation for everyone, you just have to find it.

Have a Great Day everyone!
Steven

Engine Overhauls

At some point in every airplane's life an engine overhaul has to be performed.  To many owners it's an expensive and black-box-like process; some people avoid it altogether by buying an engine with low times and then selling when it nears TBO.

I was lucky enough to have a conversation with Charlie Melot of Zephyr Aircraft Engines.  They are a very reputable engine shop in Florida known for their overhauls and amazing customer service. Charlie is a regular on many popular general aviation forums and is always giving out great advice to pilots with maintenance problems.  For our example pricing, we'll be taking a look at what I consider one of the staples of the general aviation fleet: the Lycoming IO-360.

Let's first start by looking at the popular types of options for any pilot seeking an overhaul:


The priciest of options is the Factory Rebuilt. What you get back is a zero-time engine that is, for all intents and purposes: new.  The biggest benefit from a rebuilt engine is the impact it has on your aircraft's value. This is effectively the same as any other part you have that gets sent in for an overhaul-exchange. When they receive your engine, it will become someone else's overhaul. All pieces which meet the minimum standards for a factory-new part are re-used, and those which don't are replaced with actual new parts.

Everything you receive will meet or exceed new tolerances, and this will run you a flat rate of $30,000 at the time of my writing this.

A Factory Overhaul is exactly what it sounds like. You send your engine off to the factor that made it, Lycoming or Continental for most planes, and they perform an Overhaul. Going with the Factory Overhaul instead of Factory Rebuild on this engine costs about $27,000.

There are some shops out there that are Overhaul Specialists like Charlie's Zephyr Aircraft Engines. They're mechanics who focus almost exclusively on engine overhauls and not too much else.  There are many big names out there with great reputations such as Zephyr, Penn Yan Aero, and G&N Aircraft. All three of these locations overhaul your engine, but the pricing isn't as flat: you have a lot more options than the Factory option, which impacts the cost.  The base rate for a 180HP IO-360 at Zephyr is $21,000.

An old 6-cylinder on a stand and ready to be disassembled

Technically any A&P/IA can perform an overhaul on an aircraft engine. This is commonly referred to as a Field Overhaul. If you have a trusted A&P this is a perfectly viable option, but it's also a perfectly wonderful way to get fleeced. Removing all of the cylinders, splitting the case, then putting it all back together afterwards is labor intensive. An A&P that's a friend willing to a Field Overhaul with all new cylinders, crank, and cam for little or no labor cost can be an amazing savings, but it should be a huge red flag to have a back-of-the-truck mechanic offer to do an overhaul for close to cost.

In his experience, Charlie says these are commonly people lowballing the price to not include new parts and reusing items which are questionable as to whether they meet overhaul requirements.

As with all things run by the bureaucracy, there are specific standards, rules, regulations, paperwork, red tape, and definitions to all words which have legal meaning.

According to FAR 43.2, "No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an ... aircraft engine ... as being overhauled unless [using] methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled; and  It has been tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or in accordance with current standards and technical data acceptable to the Administrator ... No person may describe in any required maintenance entry or form an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part as being rebuilt unless it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, and tested to the same tolerances and limits as a new item, using either new parts or used parts that either conform to new part tolerances and limits or to approved oversized or undersized dimensions."

So anyone who performs an overhaul on an aircraft engine must conform to these same standards set by the engine manufacturer, but getting a crank shaft ground and polished to the passable bare minimums versus a shop that'll tell you early on that the crank will need to be replaced soon. It should be noted that some people refer to rebuilds as Factory Remanufacture, but this isn't a term recognized by the FAA; these engines are officially rebuilds. 

Properly done, an overhaul is the inspection of every single little piece of the engine. It really is a complete disassembly and reassembly of the engine with any parts showing significant wear being replaced.

During the overhaul every single bolt, hose, wire, clamp, and seal will be inspected and repaired to like-new standards or replaced. This isn't even getting to the inside of the engine yet.

The inside of a crank case. This is something you want handled with care; any problems which cannot be repaired can lead to a very expensive replacement cost. Another reason to go with a specialty shop.

And here, down in the very core of your engine, is the crankshaft. Every inch of that has to be tested for tolerances and parts either replaced or repaired. Overhauls are expensive, but unlike avionics, instruments, interior, or even fresh paint: this is what helps keep your plane in the sky.

Cost of an Overhaul by Zephyr
They were able to give me a basic cost breakdown of an overhaul for our IO-360 (180hp).
The base rate is $21,000 and includes:

• Overhauls on the mags
• New Engine Harness
• New spark plugs
• Overhaul on the entire Fuel Injection System
• Overhauling the Cylinders
• Regrinding the Cam and Crank

If you want brand new cylinders from Lycoming tack on another $1,600.
A new Cam adds $700 to the cost.
If a whole new crankshaft is desired (or required) you can expect to add another $5,000!

So at a price of $26,300, although the engine isn't officially a zero-time engine, you have all new parts (minus the crankcase itself).

The "Cylinder Room" at Zephyr. It is kept immaculate because every single particle of dirt that's in the engine when reassembled will shorten the life of it. This is another reason I'd go with an overhaul shop instead of doing it in the field.

When to Overhaul
This is perhaps one of the most controversial items to discuss, but really these engines run long and well. The advice from Zephyr is to look for the obvious big problems: metal in the oil, multiple cylinders failing at the same time, and oil leaks from the crank and other places where you're likely to spend the money to split the case anyways.

They've seen first hand a Lycoming O-320 come to their shop with 4,500 hours since overhaul without any problems, and the only reason it went into the shop was that the owner's primary passenger found out about the engine times and refused to ride until it was "fixed" up!

I personally know someone whose O-540 made it to 3,400 hours before the oil consumption reached the point warranting an overhaul.

Sadly, anecdotes aren't evidence. I've been able to find a plethora of stories of engines making it well beyond TBO as well as those where the owners felt it was time to overhaul early.  In many cases the common theme seems to be oil leaking from the bottom components or metal in the oil filter/screen. All but one of the engine failure related NTSB reports I've read while researching for this posting were due to top-end components failing.  I strongly recommend all pilots read the NTSB aviation accident database regularly. It can be a downer, but it's an amazing resource from which to learn.

The Real Cost of Engine Overhauls
The base cost of all of these overhauls has some contingency built in. Assuming nothing is majorly wrong with your engine the bottom line of the overhaul will cost Zephyr roughly 65% of their base rate in parts alone.  It's only when the parts cost gets ugly that their price will go up, but often their base rate works out just fine.

There's one special consideration when it comes to field overhauls: accidents do happen. I don't view warranties as "we stand by our work" so much as "we're all human, and mistakes happen."  Without any warranty, a mistake by your A&P leading to a bad crank can cost you thousands of dollars; or worse, any mistakes during a field overhaul that damage the case could cost $12,000 by itself, let alone collateral damage to other parts from high-speed metal banging around in the case.  Mistakes are expensive!

Once you've taken that first flight since the overhaul, the mechanic that was your friend who performed the overhaul can claim that it was caused by improper break-in by the pilot, etc., etc. Without a paper warranty your mechanic's mistakes become your financial responsibility.  To me, for something so important to the safety and monetary impact of your flight, a specialty shop or factory overhaul is one spot I wouldn't recommend flying on the cheap.

A freshly cleaned and overhauled crank case and camshaft.

My next few posts are in the works. I've received some great feedback from individuals offering their details for this series of articles.  It looks like in the near future we'll have the Real Cost of:

Bell Helicopter Ownership
Seaplane ownership
Light Sport versus Part 23 aircraft
Starting Up and Running a Part 135 Operation (I'll be giving an especially big thanks to my FBO on this one)
and some standard real-cost reviews of popular General Aviation aircraft.

The Affordable Plane

My last few posts have stirred up a rather consistent response; most of the messages I have received read like this: "Great write-up, but boy was it depressing."  Don't be depressed!  I don't know about everyone else, but my friends and I that fly don't do it to be thrifty. We do it because flying is one of the most amazing experiences we can do.

This post will be about obtaining the affordable plane.

"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards,
for there you have been, and there you will long to return."
Leonardo da Vinci

For the pilot that just wants to fly regularly, putt around the pattern, and occasionally take a friend for a $100 hamburger: there are great options for ownership. Of the many options available, I'll cover the first one I thought about.

The Cessna 150

The Commuter is a great little airplane for getting into the sky and enjoying a sunny day.  I flew one for the first half of my original Private Pilot certificate, and I remember it fondly.  Powered by a near bulletproof 100hp Continental O-200, this bird is as hardy as she is slow.

It's very difficult to apply a wrong power setting on the O-200, and you generally don't even have to worry about the Lean of Peak / Rich of Peak argument your hangar mates are always having. At cruise your engine will be barely sipping fuel at just 5gph. Sure, lean her out to 4gph, but there's not much worry there either way.

With an average overhaul cost of $15,000, each hour you fly means putting away an extra $8.50 in engine reserve. Of course, the recommended TBO is 1,800, but I know a guy who currently has just over 3,500 hours since overhaul with no major engine troubles and is only now planning on having it done.

Standard Cessna 150L

The overhaul isn't everything, it's just the big expense that happens eventually.  Let's break down everything else based on its typical wear and tear, and try to add it all up assuming you want to keep everything replaced at recommended intervals (including rough labor guess).

Operating Costs with Maintenance Reserve: $45.35/hr

• $27.5/hr Fuel burn of 5 gallons per hour at $5.50/gal
• $0.60/hr Add a quart of oil per 10 hours
• $8.50/hr Engine Overhaul
• $3/hr 2x Magnetos: Overhaul Every 500 hours at about $750 ea.
• $0.25/hr Vacuum Pump: Overhaul exchange every 1,000 hours at about $250.
• $1.50/hr Generator/Alternator: Overhaul exchange after 500 hours for $750.
• $4/hr Let's say you have to replace two cylinders at 500 hours at $1,000 each. 

Note: If you can get Alcohol-free Mogas near you for about $4.00/gal that drops to $38/hr


The propeller on this is fixed pitch and made of metal. Unless you get any major nicks or corrosion, and so long as it passes annual just fine its TBO is honestly pretty irrelevant; if you own the plane for long enough for this to be your problem you've done a good job.

The control surfaces and fixed gear should be negligible as far as cost, but let's throw on another dollar per hour reserve just in case. Anything that'd blow out a strut or the like in this plane would warrant an insurance claim.

Fixed Costs Broken Down Monthly:

If you fly IFR or under a Mode-C veil you're going to need a Pitot/Static and Transponder Check
Image Courtesy Giovanni Handal via Wikimedia Commons

You want to fly, and you want to fly inexpensively. Although your bird will be exposed to the elements, a tie-down will be your best bet.  Around here that ranges from $50/mo to $200/mo. Let's assume you will drive the extra 10 miles to get that good deal and roll out a $50/mo tie-down.

An IFR Check is going to run about $300 every other year, this boils down to $12.50/month

Of course let's not forget insurance!  After making a few calls today (these guys are going to start hating my voice eventually!), I've come up with the following average quote:

• Cessna 150
• 100hp Engine
• New-purchase
• Non-hangared
• Student Pilot
• Zero Hours
• Not instrument rated
• Flight and Ground Hull + Liability Coverage
• Zero Previous Flight Experience, stating again
• Must receive at least 15 hours dual before solo

$750/year ($62.5/mo)

For reference here's what it would cost for me: $550/year ($46/mo)

• Private Pilot
• Roughly 200 hours total
• About 100 hours multi/complex
• Not instrument rated (This didn't make a difference, by the way)

The prices I received on the Annual for a Cessna 150 were what varied the most; this surprised me!  My only guess is that the more familiar your A&P/IA is with a C-150, the easier and quicker it is for them. The quotes varied between $700 and $1,300. Let's go with $1,000. If you budget and save for this monthly that's about $85/mo.

Right now the common asking price for a 150 is just over $15,000. Assuming you can talk someone down to $13,000 and pay $2,000 down on a 6% interest 10-year loan the monthly cost is going to be about $125.

I understand that not everyone is fond of financing an aircraft, but this specific post is about being able to own an aircraft on a budget (and still afford to fly it!).

So there you have it. For a monthly cost of: $336

• $125/mo Loan Payment
• $85/mo Annual Inspection
• $63/mo Insurance (Student Pilot)
• $13/mo IFR Check
• $50/mo Tie-down

You can own this airplane and fly it for $45.50 per hour with maintenance reserves.

Edit: Do to some of the private messages I've received, I'm making the following line bold and very large.
So if we compare this to renting: Nope! Not gonna do that! If you want to own to make it cheaper than renting, you're gonna have a bad time.

Owning a plane is about the freedom it provides: you know the last pilot to fly it and how it was kept. You aren't going to find someone else's trash in your plane (well... maybe, since it is tied down and not hangared). You don't have to worry about schedule conflicts, and you'll never show up at the airport to find out she's unexpectedly been put into maintenance.

That doesn't mean you won't have to cancel a flight for maintenance yourself, but at least you should know when it happens.

Happy Flying!
Steven

Finances with Wolves

I'll be looking for a Piper Cherokee Six.

This post will contain a gratuitous amount of Piper Cherokee Sixes

Over the past two days I've been calling various places about aircraft loans. Certainly fun if you're into pain.


The local banks with which I've had accounts for 15 years don't want to deal with aircraft. They even recommended an RV if I wanted to travel... that was a laugh that turned into a cry.  Anyways, the bank option was right out.

I gave a call to AirFleet Capital (I'm sure everyone reading this blog has seen their ads or know their name). The person I spoke to was kind enough, but they informed me they don't do loans for aircraft worth less than $100,000 and require 25% down.  They also limit their loans to aircraft newer than 1975 for singles and 1990 for twins.  That rules them out for me, but again they were pleasant enough on the phone; I wouldn't avoid them if I fell into that category in the future.

I called the AOPA Financial Services number just to see what they had to say. I was pleasantly surprised.

I let the rep on the line know I was interested in getting some basic details on what I could easily get approved for in terms of  being able to close the deal on the bird I want.  To keep with the goal of helping others get an idea of where things sit here's the raw numbers:

For a 1970s single they'll want at least 15% down, but for a twin 30% is more likely.  Once the Apache is sold I'll have about $12,000 to put up for down payment.

As 30% down that would net me a $40,000 twin comanche. At that price it would most likely be one which needs a bit of work -- something I'm trying to avoid this time around!

However for the single I'd limit my top end and assume 20% to get a better interest rate.

We'll assume for the sake of this article my credit score is 720. That's not too far from fact, and definitely close enough to get these numbers to match for anyone else who's interested. I also said I wanted to do a longer term loan at 10 or 15 years, the goal is to be able to fly far more regularly. I have the funds on hand should an emergency career-limiting-event ever occur, but this let's me keep more to the skies while still traveling with the family.

In terms of financial stability, I have 15 years of experience in my field and have worked at my current company for 4 years; hopefully I'll be around quite a bit longer, though stuff happens. I've had a mortgage for a few years now and everything has been just fine there.  I figure I represent your typical 30-something who is looking to buy an airplane.

So here, at $12,000 down on a loan with my approximate credit score for a 15 year term I would be approved pretty quickly for a 5% or 6% loan. Assuming $12,000 was 20% down, that would give me a monthly payment of about $375.

The Saratoga is the Cherokee Six's Retractable equivalent

I spoke with a "Kevin" on the phone; on the off chance you read this blog thanks for the info Kevin, it was great getting the details from you. =)

So, with all of the above, it was said it usually takes three days once they receive your paperwork to get an approval decision. After that, closing takes an additional three days and consists of: title search/checking for liens, aircraft history, and then the actual purchase/exchange paperwork.

And to stick with the purpose of this blog, let's break down the real cost of all of this:

My 20% down payment is going to be $12,000.

The first year of insurance on a Cherokee Six for me as a VFR pilot with about 200 hours total including 100hours multi was quoted at just under $1,500.

Cost of gas to ferry a plane back here will most likely cost $500.  Most of the Cherokee Sixes are about 6 hours away. So that's 6hrs x 14gph x $6.00/gal.

Annual and IFR inspections: Flat rate inspection for Annual is $2,000 and $300 for IFR.  Many aircraft are sold with a "fresh annual."  It has been recommended to me by many many many people to never fly through that first annual sold with the plane. They can be pencil-whipped by the seller's mechanic, and it would be in his best interest for you to fly for a year and not find things he may have overlooked.  A thorough annual by your own mechanic before the ink is dry can save a ton of money within the first year.

A general pre-buy will cost around $1,000. Always pre-buy. It's better to lose $1,000 than to be stuck with $50,000 of plane you can't fly.

I also live in the wonderful state of Illinois, where taxes are high and our last two governors are convicted felons. This means I will be paying roughly 10% on the purchase price or fair-value of the aircraft, whichever is higher. That adds another $6,000 to the price tag I'll have to cough up.

So on the day of the buy I will spend:

• $12,000 down payment
• $1,500 insurance
• $500 gas to ferry
• $2,300 for annual plus IFR check
• $1,000 pre-purchase inspection
• $6,000 Illinois Sales Tax (I might hangar her in Wisconsin because of this, however)
• $550 closing-fees by AOPA

Up-front cost of new plane: $23,850

Ways to reduce this cost: 

Buy local, which could roll the pre-purchase into a full annual and eliminate the ferry cost. 

Buy distant enough that it's across the state border (state luxury tax).

Finish my Instrument Rating (drops insurance to $900/yr)

That would drop the purchase-day price to: $15,750

This could be reduced even further by doing 15% down payment, but that would raise the monthly beyond where I'd like.

So there you have it. Buying a decent, affordable plane with $12,000 down will truly cost me about $24,000 to solidify ownership -- double the daydream cost! But, every time I've taken my family on a trip; every single time I've done the Chicago Skyline tour (at least 20 times by now); every single time we decide to fly just to get out of the house it has been worth it. The truth is you should never spell out the cost of ownership to try and justify it. The justification comes with the freedom you have by owning. Detailing the cost should be used to determine whether you're shopping in your price range.

The alternate options:

Some people asked why I didn't consider a Cessna 210 or a Beechcraft Bonanza. 

The Cessna 210 is an excellent alternative for someone looking for a Cherokee Six equivalent. My only reason against it is simply that I prefer low-wing aesthetically.  All arguments about high versus low wing aside, if you don't like the look of what you fly: why did you spend a large chunk of money on it?

The Beechcraft Bonanza meets the criteria as well, it has a much higher entry cost. Given my cost analysis above, I don't want to think of what it would cost me for an aircraft that starts at double the purchase price of a Cherokee Six.  It is along the same lines as to why we didn't go for an Aztec or Navajo: we'd be able to afford to own the plane, but probably not afford to fly it as well. That's something I think everyone should consider when buying a plane: if it's at the top of your purchase range, will you still have money for fuel?

Next Post will likely cover what I'm looking for when I reach out to sellers about their planes, as well as any funny-stories that occur in that time. I already have one...  To the sellers out there don't be surprised if I come asking for details on your Cherokee Six.

Have a Great Day All!

Steven

The Pre-Purchase Homework

From my previous post, my next aircraft must meet the following criteria:

Speed: 130kts
Useful Load: 1,000lbs plus fuel
Seating Arrangements: Six seats
Endurance: 350nm plus 45min reserves.
Pilot Comfort: Autopilot, possibly slaved to a GPS
Passenger Comfort: Heating must be good for cold Chicago flying and Ventilation good enough for summer flying

After a long discussion with my wife, I ended up drawing a triangle with three points. At each point was labeled the main three factors for which aircraft we'd end up with:

• Family Hauling
• Long Trips
• Regularly Affordable

The choice was for her to pick two of the three; realistically that's what we'd be able to afford.

It really was the most realistic option for us.

The candidates came in as follows:

The Affordable Family Hauler is the Piper Cherokee Six.  

After piloting the Flying Sweet Potato for a few years, the speed of a Cherokee Six is familiar to me. Where it really holds its own is in her useful load. She can be fitted with 7 seats and has upwards a 1600 lbs. useful load.  Not only this, but being a fixed-gear single the insurance rates will be significantly lower than my other options. The maintenance costs should be lower as well overall, as there are fewer systems to break. Lugging the whole family around on 14gph makes this plane very affordable. Mid-week fun flights become more of a reality than with other higher-maintenance higher-fuel-burn aircraft.  This makes the Cherokee Six very attractive.

It may surprise some that I've listed the Cherokee Six and not its retractable gear counterpart the Piper Saratoga. There is a large difference between these two planes in both cruising speed and useful load. It would seem that the retractable gear system was simply installed as a compromise. For about a 300lbs decrease in useful, the Saratoga travels about 20% faster.

Piper Cherokee Six, an excellent load-hauler if slow is your thing.

The Affordable Cross-Country Machine would be a Turbo Twin Comanche.

I personally consider the Turbonormalized Twin Comanche to be one of the best light twins ever produced. With tip tanks and oxygen it's possible to cruise for over 1100nm at 180kts. This is a traveling machine that can take two adults and three children from Chicago to the Florida Keys on a single tank of fuel. At the same time, you're only feeding two Lycoming IO-320s which sip fuel compared to other aircraft capable of this range and speed.  Run it LoP to 11gph, and you're cruising at 16mpg! The biggest downside in our chart is that it really isn't a family hauler. Though the B and C models could be fitted with a 5th and 6th seat, the useful load would only make this practical for the whole family while our children are babies and toddlers.

Still, it wasn't ruled out entirely; depending on the financials my wife and I agreed that we'd keep these considered.

B or C-model Twin Comanche with Tip Tanks

The Family Hauling Powerhouse is a Piper Navajo.

During our day-dreams of hauling the family to Barbados or England or Freeport, the Navajo came up several times. It would be capable of the long flights we want, while also bringing the whole family. The only problem is that it isn't really too affordable for operation.  While a recent demonstration flight showed a Navajo will easily pull more weight than I'd be able to throw at it with a huge range and high travel speed to match.  The general maintenance costs don't actually look too much worse than what I've been paying on the Apache.  However, feeding those two thirsty TIO-540s would bump up the fuel consumption to about 36gph.

That's pricey. At $6/gal (which would be a hunt these days!) that's $220/hr in fuel alone.  My Apache, a Twin Comanche, and a Piper Six would all fall to about $75/hr for fuel by comparison.

The overhaul on a TIO-540 is roughly three times the cost of an IO-320. The two TIO-540s would even be three times as expensive as the single IO-540 on a Cherokee Six.  This plane would be a much larger financial responsibility, and would have to be treated almost as an alternative to airlines for us.  Sadly, we ruled this one out as soon as we started seriously discussing the money.

A cabin-class 8-seat aircraft. Sexy.

Back to the mission:

• Speed: Cherokee Six and Twin Comanche both satisfy the 130kts, even the non-turbo version of the TC and the 260HP version of the Six.
• Useful Load: The Cherokee Six actually meets this requirement with full fuel. The turbo TCs I've looked at have had the useful load for either the 1,000 lbs plus about two hours, or extend the endurance by sacrificing a good chunk of the useful load.
• Endurance: The Cherokee Six is capable of 840nm at full fuel, which she can do with my load of people. The turbo TC can have up to a 1200nm endurance, but at a significant loss of useful load.
• Passenger Comfort: A Cherokee Six will heat well at cruise, but since the engine must warm up first, my passengers will likely be sitting cold and huddled for warmth during taxi and takeoff.  The twin comanche has the benefit of its own combustion can in the nose. This can be used to heat the cabin during pre-flight so that by the time people are climbing in, the inside is nice an warm. It might seem a simple thing, but these Chicago winters can be harsh!

Those darn Chicago winters.

Finance: The Deciding Factor

So it's down to the Twin Comanche and the Cherokee Six.  Or so I thought.  I'll cover this in my next post, but I spent some time today calling around to some aircraft loan companies. The impact the terms of the loan offered had a significant impact on our decision. We will be looking for a Cherokee Six. The affordability swing was so wildly in favor of this it wasn't even a question.

So in my next post I'll cover the raw numbers of my financial homework, and what I plan to do for the next steps!

Have a Great Night Everyone!

Steven

Determining the Mission

The decision was made, we are going to sell our Apache and buy a new plane.  But what?  It's a buyer's market right now, and we're looking for a potential "forever plane." So it would be far better for us to take our time and figure out what plane we should really go after.

The self-defeating cycle in a buyer's market

I've spoken to other pilots in the past and present, and the decision to buy a plane seems to follow this pattern:

1. Decide to buy a plane and set a basic budget.
2. Find an otherwise unaffordable plane that for some reason is at the top end of your budget
3. The budget has changed and you're now looking at those planes, convincing yourself you can afford it.
4. Find the perfect plane in #3.
5. Realize that you were delusional about the budget and get frustrated.
6. Return to #1.

This is the cycle that causes a search for a plane like this:

Leads to a plane like this:

Just tryin' to be like Mike.

I do feel sad for those who end up with a plane they can afford to own but not afford to fly. It is almost a trap I've found myself in.

Doing this process (steps 1 through 6) several times led us to a different approach; one that may seem obvious, but as any aircraft owner can tell you: rarely happens.  We were going to define the mission, in full, and look for a plane to handle our requirements. Once we have a pool of planes, we will see what (if any!) meets our budget.

Defining the Mission

I'll split this into categories, as it's really the first way anyone should go about it: Performance - Speed, Weight, and Endurance; Comfort - Pilot, Passenger;  Capability - FIKI, Hard IMC, and Mountains/Water

Performance:

The Speed of an aircraft is probably one of the first things most pilots looking to move up are going to notice. Who hasn't thought about what life would be like if only their plane was a few knots faster? I had this little itch right away, but after running the numbers on the main flights I'd be doing, it just wouldn't make sense to spend money with this as the deciding factor.

My Piper Apache will fly 135kts Indicated Airspeed at 7,500' MSL. This turns into a true airspeed of about 150kts. So assuming zero wind, the Apache will fly from KUGN to KGVL in roughly three and a half hours. A quick comparison to this chart by Diamond Aire puts an Aztec at 180kts. We'll assume that's the true airspeed at optimum altitude (as there's no way I'd advertise my Apache to be 150kts straight out, but that's what it trues out before power attenuation).

A flight at 180kts on that same 525nm trip turns into right about three hours.  It's important to note that for this half-hour gain you're feeding fuel to an extra four cylinders regardless of the number of passengers you're carrying.  Also, half an hour doesn't make or break a weekend trip.

Our modest cruise rate of 135kts indicated is definitely enough for our mission. Our favorite far places to go are: Denver/Colorado Springs, Montreal, and Atlanta. All of these are going to be just four to five hours even at 135kts ground speed.  Perfect for a weekend or long-weekend trip.

If you're curious about the reported performance of any General Aviation aircraft I strongly recommend Rising Up.com for both their browsing and search criterea.

The ASI is at 115kts during a slow sightseeing flight

Gross Weight and useful load are one of our more important factors. Almost every flight we've done has either been with my wife's sister and her husband, or with my sister and her husband. When my son was smaller (and wow is he big: 26 months old and 37" tall), he was an easy lap-child to take along with four adults. Now, we're going to be filling out even more seats as my average flight looks like four adults and three children.  Given the weights of my passengers, and allowing for room to grow on the children up to about 6 years or so: I need 900lbs of useful load for passengers, minimum.

On top of that, we'll be bringing  a couple car-seats or luggage. It's important for me to note that on the long-stay trips that aren't with family we tend to go out and buy some clothes at a goodwill, walmart, or craigslist for the week and then donate it to a local shelter. This significantly cuts down on the weight we carry for 5+ people.  So, at the very least, we are looking at a minimum of 1000lbs useful load plus enough fuel for four hours (at least halfway to our destinations).

My wife with my son on his first flight (3 months old), family trips are a must.

The fuel Endurance of our ideal plane grew without bound. By the time my wife and I were discussing potential trips, we were literally discussing the ability to fly to Europe via Greenland without having to install special ferry tanks.  It's so fun to dream, but the only way to accomplish our goals is in the waking world. It'd be crazy fun to do, and we hope to one day, but buying a plane for a trip we hope to do "one day" is simply madness!  More on this later, it was actually a spot where we got stuck. We have friends in London, Denmark, and Sweden, so visiting them one day and being able to hop around would be amazing. I'm already starting to ramble about it again!  

When you're looking at buying a plane, find your weakness and set an iron-clad limit. This is where we kept creeping up, as silly as it may seem. We would daydream about Europe, The Bahamas, Aspen Colorado, etc. Holy crap.  Then I had a nice chat with some guys based out of Colorado Springs and they helped me snap out of it.  One of them flew a four-engine air transport jet out of Aspen, and he said that it was always only half full (which lead to passenger complaints when they said they were out of seats, even though the plane was only half full!).  So again, FIND YOUR PERFORMANCE CREEP AND CAUTERIZE IT OFF. For some it's speed, for some it's useful load, but eventually every pilot will seek performance gains until they find something they can't afford to fly.

Wow that was some rambling!  So, after some real soul searching, we decided that our real ideal endurance is one that can make it at least half-way on a single tank of fuel with our typical load.  This was probably the most realistic limit we set on any of our requirements.  It's practical, and we can measure it against all other performance benchmarks.

Since our longest typical-mission flight is about 700nm, we need at least 350nm plus 45 minutes of reserve after 1000lbs of useful load.  Now we're getting somewhere!

So in the end our performance requirements are a solid number set:

Speed: Roughly 125kts to 140kts indicated airspeed.
Useful Load: 1,000lbs plus enough for the specified endurance (remember, this changes depending on speed vs fuel consumption!).
Seating Arrangements: Six seats is our realistic mark. Anything with more than six true seats will put us outside of our budget. Seven "Grampa's Buick" style seats (where one row is two wide with three seatbelts for kids) will work just fine for a few years.
Endurance: 350nm plus 45min reserves.

Chicago to London GA? Sure, just 30 hours in the air!

Comfort:

Pilot comfort is a huge deal. It's one thing to be able to hand fly in the soup for a few hours then go home and crawl into bed, it's an entirely different kind of flying altogether to be in the air for six hours and then be expected to socialize.  In my Apache I noticed on one particular flight when I felt far better than most.  It was a four hour leg, and I had my right-seater "follow the magenta line" while I was just watching altitude, occasionally checking course, and monitoring the radio (always get flight following!). The Apache had no real autopilot, but using my impromptu Ottopilot really helped with fatigue over a long flight.  An Autopilot will be a must.

Also, anyone who has switched from a passive headset to active noise reduction will tell you how amazing an effect it has on fatigue. Fortunately I have this taken care of with my Bose A20 headset, and that can come with me to the next bird.  If you don't have an ANR headset, and you plan to do longer flights: buy one! Watch Bose, too. They usually have great financing deals; I was able to get my A20 for 6 months 0% financing. I was going to buy one outright, but at zero percent, it just increased my fuel budget by spreading the cost out.

Sound is one of the two biggest causes of pilot fatigue, so other than this one of the only other options is either a pressurized plane or one that sacrifices useful load for extra soundproofing material in the cabin. Both of those options are out for me.

Passenger comfort is an interesting quandary. Most of what I've experienced from the passenger comfort annunciator has to do with ease of entry/exit with the aircraft.  Once inside, no one really seems to complain too much so long as their knees aren't hugging their face. There are quite a few six-seater aircraft which have separate passenger access doors. It's a bonus, but not a deal-breaker.

The biggest make or break item for me will be heating. I suppose it's a good thing that I'm looking to buy now that the weather will be cooling off; I can get up to altitude and check the cabin temperature.  Around here in Chicago the temp at altitude can easily be negative double-digits late fall and early spring. A good heater will be a necessity.  I tried flying the Apache once with the heater off in December just to see its impact (it didn't feel like it was outputting much heat), and I couldn't feel my feet by the time I was back on the ground.  Especially since children will be involved, good climate controls are a must.

Capability:

FIKI (Flight Into Known Icing) is a wonderful luxury. Instrument pilots in Chicagoland see their fair share of flights delayed due to icing conditions or icing forecast.  The winter here is reasonably predictable: after halloween skies will be clear and a million, or overcast at 800'.  However, we decided to treat it as just a luxury and will happily stay grounded in the winter should icing be a concern. 

Hard IMC is something I plan on being a non-factor for us. I am beginning my hood-work for an instrument rating, and once rating my goal will be to stay as current as possible and take advantage of any overcast layers for logging actual imc.  

When I say non-factor, I don't mean that I will boldly go where one man has gone before. I mean that I don't want my skill as a pilot and the equipment onboard to be the limiting factor.  This means that a plane with a stormscope/radar will have a significant edge over one that doesn't. Attitude-based autopilots fair better in turbulence than inertial ones according to my research. These are the items of which I speak.

Synthetic Vision has to be amazing for when you're in the soup too long, but I have absolutely no experience with it. If anyone in the Chicago area wants to take me up so I can see what it's all about, by all means get a hold of me!  SVT is going to be another nice-to-have like FIKI, but I think that a strike-finder or stormscope is a must. 

If a plane meets all of my criteria without a strikefinder/stormscope/radar, I'll be basing my offer on the cost it would take to add one.

Mountains & Open Water isn't so big a thing in general. With the Apache the second engine was nice to have as I take friends to Grand Rapids often, and it's fun to fly straight across Lake Michigan. A trip from Waukegan (KUGN) to Grand Rapids (KGRR) or Toronto (CYYZ) will only be slightly longer flying around the lake instead of across.  The southern Appalachian mountains aren't so bad to clear; nothing like out west.  In a single I'll likely limit my flying over them to the daytime, but in a twin even a 6,000'MSL single-engine ceiling can get you past these mountains properly-navigated. It wouldn't be ideal, but it's better than the alternative.

After talking to some folks out in Colorado Springs, clearing those mountains is going to take some turbocharged engines and oxygen or pressurization.  With the density altitude of Aspen reaching 13,000' in the summer and the nearest peaks being over 14,000'MSL I can no longer imagine this flatlander going up and over in something without a single-engine service ceiling of at least 16,000'.  If we were to go for something that could get us up and over the Rockies, I would not spare any expense on making sure we could do it safely.

The mountains of Northern Illinois.

So there we have it.

The Mission Requirements are as follows:

Speed: 130kts indicated airspeed, assuming roughly 150kts true at 7,500.
Useful Load: 1,000lbs plus fuel
Seating Arrangements: Six seats
Endurance: 350nm plus 45min reserves.

Pilot Comfort: Autopilot, possibly slaved to a GPS

Passenger Comfort: Heating must be good for cold Chicago flying and Ventilation good enough for summer flying

The Nice To Haves:

Passenger Comfort Bonus: Easy ingress/egress

FIKI: Complete luxury

IMC Utilities: Realtime weather of some sort is highly desired

Mountain Crossing: Nice to have, but not a necessity

Open Water: For me this is basically the Twin vs Single decision.

The performance decisions really set the range of aircraft we need. The speed requirement really opened our eyes as to what we want versus what we need.  

My next post will be about setting our budget and analyzing what specific planes meet the mission.

Cheers!

Steven

Decision to sell the Apache

It all started when my wife and I decided we were going to spend some more money on our plane. We sat down to take a look at our main usage of the Apache and try to get add-ons to make our most common flights more comfortable.

The problem we keep coming back to is strictly the number of seats.  Virtually all of our flights have consisted of: my wife, my son (currently 2yo), her sister, her sister's baby, and her sister's husband. My wife is also currently pregnant, so we're running out of room in the Apache fast.  

We even canceled one of our trips because the comfort factor was making everyone way too cranky. Although we four adults and the two children were well within the Weight and CG limits, there was virtually no room inside to stretch out. When discomfort levels rose to much during my run-up, I decided to cancel the flight; I never fly when one of my passengers is agitated.

My favorite passenger in the world.

I made this post on reddit, which is a location where I spend quite a bit of my free time and not-so-free time. I highly recommend it.

It wasn't the easiest of decisions. We really liked the Apache, and it is a great little plane. We even considered getting the 3rd row installed since weight wasn't the issue.  We were able to get a quote from Diamond Aire, and they're great to work with; but, the cost of adding a 3rd row window, seating, and emergency-exit (required if there are 6 or more seats) was too high for us.

The Apache also has no Auto-pilot. You can ass in the panel shot below a little hole missing; there was previously a handle to control an in-op wing leveler. Since it was in-op we had it removed (it really was hideous). Now that we're going to be doing longer flights with kids, I consider a functional AP a must.

The hole between the ASI and the VSI used to be a large black push/pull knob for the wing leveler

Virtually every option we discussed for modifying the Apache was too expensive. Since time on annual was expiring, it seemed like a perfect time to sell. Most people wanting such a twin will likely be to build time or train students; the kind of person who won't want to spend money on an annual up front (I'd suspect).

So from here, we decided to sell and figure out what plane we do want to get. That's always a horrible thing to do because you will always, and I don't care who you are: you will always start clicking to more and more expensive and advanced planes. It's invariable. I'll cover this in the next blog post.

Then, some bad news struck: there was one item that was an airworthiness issue, and they weren't sure how expensive it would be to repair/replace.  The rear tail gusset was cracked.

My initial thoughts were dreadful, doom and gloom. I also can't stand haggling with people, so I figured I'd just lower the price on the Apache to make sure she sells. That was a big oops! My initial asking price was right around $30,000; after adjusting for the Airworthiness issue I listed $20,000.  Aaaaaand after all of that, the combined total of all the major squawks is coming in at an estimated $3,000 to fix (including the crack!). So whoever ends up buying her is getting a big deal there.  

Unfortunately I always get worked up on haggling, and I just can't deal with it. I'll reap what I have sewn and sit firm at the $20,000.  Unless someone somehow only sees my initial post and offers up a higher-amount, but sadly "nice guys finish last" in these situations.

So the entirety of the rest of our plan depends on the plane being sold, but there are two semi-local salvage yards and 2 probably-serious buyers interested, so I have hope. =)

In the end, we are going to be sad to see her go, but there's no sense in trying to turn this plane into something it's not.  There are lots of bells and whistles we could get like gps, tip tanks, etc., but that wouldn't change the seating issue.  Also, I have to have one of the most awesome tail numbers there are.  

Tomorrow I'll start posting about the plane to meet the mission prospects!

~Steven