Aircraft is gone from Planecheck…
Vref wrote:
P210 versus my V35V35 costs should be somewhere around half-way between the P210 and the 177RG. However, that figure has a lot of variability related to timing in the aircraft’s care-cycle: usually, as you acquire an aircraft, there is a lot of stuff you need to do but once you have caught up, things stabilize. Of course you can have the odd one-offs, but the big one, the engine, if you fly regularly and do all the advised preventive maintenance, you can mostly provision for.
On an aircraft like this M22, it is quite obvious these are the big factors, not the acquisition price. It seems to be off market now, I hope someone who appreciates the uniqueness of this aircraft and is willing to invest on it has procured it. Otherwise, if it’s someone misled by the price, either we see it on the market soon enough or it will be another sad loss.
Nicely said Antonio, this is why I chickened out on a P210 versus my V35, although the delta in airframe purchase is not that much, to keep a P210 in tip top shape would have significantly increased my operating cost. Not doubled but a lot more, for sure the engine can become a certain risk factor were you always need sufficient financial reserves…..Its all about mission and budget..The P210 fills a nice niche market there are no alternatives in this niche… Anything above that is Malibu territory and prices
Just heard of a US model that has both a G650 and G750 in it. So it’s possible to install that on N-reg. The IO-541 is a bit of an orphan. It’s also in the Beech Duke, so not unobtanium, but certainly a smaller pool to source from.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
FL240, pressurized, 200 kts and 1200 NM range is a very potent airplane
Those are very useful and impressive performance parameters for a travelling piston aircraft, and a lot of bang for the money.
Sounds very much like our P210, but the latter for relatively little more money but with an OEM,a lot of STC’s and a thousand of the type to help support it (and you can actually carry some stuff all the way to those 1200nm!)
MikeWhiskey wrote:
do you have a guestimate of the higher operating cost compared to a M20C / M20J?
I have no idea but if our P210 vs C177RG serves as a similar comparison that we are very familiar with, then for utilization <100h/yr the answer is twice as much. It has been said before: don’t be misled by the purchase price: this is an <$100k airframe that would sell for about $1.5M if made new today. You should expect operating costs to be in line with the latter, not the former. The avionics (and most other mods) it deserves would need ad-hoc (ie expensive) design approvals
Rather that op costs, I would have a bigger worry about what percentage of time the aircraft would be operational and not awaiting upgrades, fixes, difficult parts, paperwork and the like.
This is in my view an airplane for an appreciative enthusiast for whom the low acquisition price is a small factor in the decision, who is willing to spend $50-$100k equipping it and then $25k-$40k/year and a lot of his personal time and energy maintaining and running it, and who has a great relationship with his maintenance team.
Personally, if I had the means I’d go for this Mustang in a big way. It is a LOT of airplane for the money and I suppose it could be made a nice IFR platform with relatively few upgrades. FL240, pressurized, 200 kts and 1200 NM range is a very potent airplane.
Well, the airplane is based at my home airfield and, if I would be in the market to buy a plane, alone for securing the hangar place I would consider buying…. Nonetheless, do you have a guestimate of the higher operating cost compared to a M20C / M20J?
Some of us fly septuagenarian aircraft, which like Tigger’s broom have been endlessly rebuilt :)
boscomantico wrote:
Maybe the engine got a bit wet there…
Anyway, a very marginal runway for such a big beast.
Actually, as far as I know that plane has been based there for most of its existence. And from what I hear the seller is if not the original owner then a very long term owner. The incident reported was very lucky indeed as the airplane had absolutely no damage despite almost ending up in the water. Apparently it not only flies like a tank, it is also built like one 
This is a very sore subject also Antonio touches. Actually, the FOCA has addressed this issue in their safety report stating that they are worried about the status quo where prosecutors actively undermine just culture and apparently they are trying to counteract this. The incidents you quote are very well known here. However, the critical player here has been the SUST issuing completely over the top safety recommendations which the FOCA partially followed. In the case of on condition, they came up with inspections which appear to have caused at least one more accident while preventing others if I listen to inspectors but that does not put away the fact that the airplane in question should never have been immatriculated in Switzerland in the condition it was, that particular whoopsie is not even mentioned in the report…
I see a rather difficult situation for the FOCA. They are between a stone (SUST) and a hard place (Public Prosecutors) and on top they have a lot of lawyers in their own ranks whose idea of risk analysis is to eliminate the risk altogether. In some cases EASA regs have prevented worse but in many cases it appears that their position is anything but simple. In the end, they will have to ask themselfs if in the face of the massive prosecution of aviators in Switzerland recently they are willing to go out on a limb to protect aviation from this development. In all fairness, I see a massive conflict of interest there which probably needs to be sorted out via external influence (e.g. EASA / ICAO rules overruling national rulemaking). I am told that ICAO has taken an interest in the goings on regarding the prosecution of ATCO’s and if they look closely, they will find a lot of other things to look at. In fact, some of the stuff prosecutors in this country have been shooting against in other fields appear to violate basic human right principles, so I guess the EU human right courts are gonna be busy in some cases too (as Switzerland reluctantly reckognizes those). this is by no means restricted to aviation, but a general development.
As for the aging airplane proposed rulemaking, the FOCA seem very well aware of the fact that imposing such age limits would close down GA mostly. For the moment I think they are primarily focussed on the aftermath of the Ju Air Crash which already has had the consequence of grounding several similar projects, the Connie and the German JU52 for sure and has hastened the sale of the Breitling DC3 to Turkey. So what I think we will see in a relatively short term is a prohibition on old airplanes which exceed something like 6 seats or massively increased restrictions on their use, such as it has been hinted that such planes would not be allowed to overfly inhabited areas e.t.c. In non commercial traffic they will have to convince EASA as it is out of their hands.
Personally, if I had the means I’d go for this Mustang in a big way. It is a LOT of airplane for the money and I suppose it could be made a nice IFR platform with relatively few upgrades. FL240, pressurized, 200 kts and 1200 NM range is a very potent airplane.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I hear a lot of rumours that some countries will go after airplanes above 40 years of age with a big axeThat’s 90% of all trainers PA28/C172/C152, they’ll have to find additional criterias.
I would jump at this if I was in the market. 24 still flying in the world, so not a total orphan
Seriously, how do you maintain an aircraft like this?
Exactly, not a total orphan but just about. No STC’s, no nothing.
Accident reports support that widening your margins a bit if you are still flying at age 84 is a good idea.
