Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Cheap airplanes to buy, own and fly thread

Maoraigh wrote:

Fitting the 8.33 and Mode S was cheap.

Funny, I didn’t pay anything extra for my 833/mode S paperwork on a CoA.

Last Edited by mh at 10 Feb 20:24
mh
Inside the sky.
EDXE, EDXF, Germany

These boxes are probably all certified anyway, so the saving would be on labour, if you install it away from the avionics installer scene. The saving is however also obtainable on a certified aircraft; it’s just that nobody knows that there is no requirement to use an “avionics installer” company, and very few have the contacts to get it done.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

it’s just that nobody knows that there is no requirement to use an “avionics installer” company, and very few have the contacts to get it done.

Hmm I think >90% of all gliders and TMG in Germany are equipped by the owner or a club member (i.e. one of the owners), and a good bunch of privately owned ELA1, too. Yes, there is much FUD around concerning maintenance of ELA1/ELA2 aircraft, but as you keep saying, the less you know, the more you pay.

And sometimes, it seems, certain people want to pay more, just to keep ranting over Europe and the EASA :-)

mh
Inside the sky.
EDXE, EDXF, Germany

LeSving wrote:

The cheapest and less troublesome certified plane to own is a relatively new C-172, but it will cost you at least 150k up front.

Well… not even close.

LeSving wrote:

They are all old-timers, classics, vintage and will be cumbersome to maintain unless getting them out of EASA reg.

No, that’ll burn money on the pot and doesn’t make things easier, but more complicated.

Silvaire wrote:

The Bölkow Juniors and Rallyes are higher performing planes

Hehe, I have never before heard someone call a Rallye a “higher performing plane” :-)

mh
Inside the sky.
EDXE, EDXF, Germany

Peter wrote:

These boxes are probably all certified anyway

Yes, no way without certified radio and transponder, and with all the paperwork in Europe today. At least no real way to easily get it cheaper. For the radio (transceiver) the reason is that the national “radio authority” or whatever it’s called in English has stopped doing technical tests themselves. They are approving radios based on documentation from the manufacturer. For them to document that the radio is performing according to certification specs, they have to certify it. For the transponder, I don’t remember exactly, but it’s basically the same thing. The manufacturer has to document that the item performs according to airspace requirements.

In theory each item could be tested by an independent third party, I guess, but I’m not sure if that would be cheaper or better.

mh wrote:

Well… not even close.

Numbers would be fine Seriously though, a C-172 can be fixed in no time everywhere , and a relatively new one normally runs for hours and hours without anything needing fixing. You can’t say that about an old one, not if it haven’t already been refurbished for 50-100k or more. A Cub is simple enough, and there exists a forest of after market parts. A Cub, Pa-18, is Annex I however, and vintage even though “full” national CofA. Such an aircraft can fly freely in Europe under the new ECAC recommendation that almost nobody has recognized yet, hence experimental is better.

LeSving wrote:

You can’t say that about an old one, not if it haven’t already been refurbished for 50-100k or more.

Sure I can, as I have. e.g. our club purchased a 172H and it ran w/o problems for < 500 hrs before (self inflicted) repair was necessary. Our 172b ran for 700hrs straight after an engine swap and the engine stopped due to a material failure within the engine (on a factory new part, something that would have affected a new engine the same way). The 172D I trained in, runs now for over 20 years with just a top overhaul.

Same goes for 6 other C172 I know well for a long time, an Arrow, an M20J, three Rallyes, two DR250, two D140, one DR400, two AeroCommander 114, one PA23 …

mh
Inside the sky.
EDXE, EDXF, Germany

On an annual basis, assuming a low to medium utilisation, C172 is certainly more expensive than many comparable aircraft. Maybe it wins with high utilisation in a busy school.

I asked my engineer, who has maintained, restored, owned, flown and leased out a variety of planes, what certified SEP aircraft he considers the least expensive in terms of total costs, including his own labour. In his opinion, it’s Piper Warrior (as distinct from other PA28).

LKBU near Prague, Czech Republic

Why is that? C172P and PA28W have the same engines (O320) and both can take lot of hits, fitted with same standard avionics, the complexity of electric fuel system is the “same” as electric flaps in the other, is it something to do with taking the two aircrafts appart? I don’t think the running cost between the two will be really that much different in %? They only have 5 years difference in their production line…

Last Edited by Ibra at 10 Feb 22:13
ESSEX, United Kingdom

Ibra, this was his impression regarding the typical amount of labour plus the total cost of spares and consumables. In case it depends on geographic location (due to climate, labour prices, whatever), he is based in Oxfordshire.
Also, if I remember correctly, he mentioned Warriors are less prone to corrosion.

LKBU near Prague, Czech Republic
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top