You guys are adding to my arguments to stay with a simple, non-retractable single. My biggest maintenance item so far this year has been a new Concorde battery, $350 USD. Last replaced in 2016. I also purchased a new gas strut for the nose gear, €400 or something but my wife pays for it out of her European account which is replenished with her rent money. So that doesn’t count… 
Annual is in November and I have a few little projects in mind… it might rise over $500 including parts this year
Retract doesn’t cost any significant money, providing one’s mechanic has heard of this stuff
I am however staggered at the extra costs of the turbo versions of my engine, and of the pressurised airframes.
I wonder how much of that is due to airframe age? There used to be a guy here who for many years had an Aztec and often said he was spending 20k/year GBP on keeping it running…
@Peter some retractable systems have their idiosyncrasies: hydraulic, pneumatic, bungees, rigging, complicated gear door sequencing, etc
The TB20 may be blessed with a straightforward robust electro-hydraulic (?) system that is trouble free and cheap to maintain, but not all types are so blessed. Then, arguably, all RG types suffer some insurance premium adjustments.
Some types also seem to suffer gear failures more than others, hence the insurance cost.
There used to be a guy here who for many years had an Aztec and often said he was spending 20k/year GBP on keeping it running…
That seems about right on the G reg: engine hoses, hydraulic hoses, cabin heater, RG, propellers, engine overhaul fund, avionics, electrics, de icing, flight control and airframe ADs, engine components..
To keep a sixty year old MEP in good condition including all the EASA recurring items assume around 20k on average – around fifteen years ago I would have been pleased if mx came in under £10k for a year.
I expect the 20k may cover hangar and insurance?
The M22 was a nice idea, but a failure as a commercial project, not unlike the 400, but at least the latter has a large cabin and you can still talk to Extra and Continental about it!
One of the two M22 in Switzerland was for sale recently at a ridiculously low price and got snapped up by a new owner in Germany in no time. The other one had a gear up landing at Portoroz last Winter and just came back online. Not sure if it was the one on the pic or the other one.
The one now sold was based in Wangen Lachen (500m runway) for all its life.
It did sound very tempting at the time, but somehow I am glad it got snapped up. Legacy planes like that require a lot of tech knowledge and involvement as well as have part problems almost sure. I hear however that they are lovely planes to fly. And yes, in many regards, it can give the Malibu a run for its money. The way it looks, the 2nd time that Piper took a good idea by Mooney and turned it into one of theirs. First of course was the Comanche, which has a very similar wing.
Peter wrote:
Retract doesn’t cost any significant money, providing one’s mechanic has heard of this stuff
RobertL18C wrote:
some retractable systems have their idiosyncrasies: hydraulic, pneumatic, bungees, rigging, complicated gear door sequencing, etc
Any retractable that I’d buy would very likely need some level of landing gear overhaul. I’m sure that once rebuilt and debugged it would not be a huge issue except for making the annual a bit more work. Not that big a deal if you have jacks on hand, or make them.
A friend was telling me of his Navion landing gear issues last weekend, he’d had lots of problems with the engine driven hydraulic pump and had successfully sent it out for overhaul. Oddly enough he’d never had any issues with external hydraulic leaks, just internal leakage inside the pump. However while doing the work he realized that the manufacturer used all steel fittings (or brass? I’ve forgotten) and steel hydraulic tubing to save money. Very heavy so he replaced all that with conventional aircraft stuff. And so it goes. That system is a bit archaic, but I’ve seen similar level of effort with people buying new to them Bonanzas, Bellancas etc. There always seems to be something to sort out with the gear, along with all the other stuff that needs doing with a new purchase. I figure two years or so to debug any plane.
Silvaire wrote:
a new Concorde battery, $350 USD
Oh, I also replaced one of those!
Silvaire wrote:
You guys are adding to my arguments to stay with a simple, non-retractable single
Nothing beat a man who knows what he wants 
On RG the main costs are pilot errors and insurance premiums, the gear maintenance bill is peanut….
Peter wrote:
I am however staggered at the extra costs of the turbo versions of my engine, and of the pressurised airframes.
Silvaire wrote:
I figure two years or so to debug any plane.
That is my view, a lot of the stuff I have fixed has been catch-up material that should have been done in the past. Once up to speed it should not be so bad, but it is never going to be like a 172 or even a TB20: fact is there are more systems, more valves, more relays, more motors, more switches, so more stuff to maintain. .
For example my 1978 P210 gear system has no fewer than 10 doors, 11 hydraulic actuators and one accumulator and associated hoses in order to fully enclose the retracted gear.It took us some effort to set it right but it has been trouble-free since.
The subsequent years they were made with a simpler system with only 7 hydraulic actuators and the mains recessed in the fuselage without doors.
I deliberately picked the 1978 model because of the slightly better cruise speed and efficiency by about 5 kts.
Peter wrote:
the extra costs of the turbo versions of my engine
The PA46 is not really just a “turbo version”…it is 40% more powerful and the commonality is very low, it is mostly the 540 displacement which is the same.
