but the running costs will be extremely low compared to a Cessna or Piper
I would like to see real numbers supporting the “extremely low” 
Note that a valid comparison has to correctly account for incidental factors e.g. if the lack of an ICAO CofA enables owner maintenance and the owner does not account for his time (or gets a friend to do the work for free, or for beer, etc) then there is an ownership cost saving but it is incidental to the certification regime.
In the long run, the biggest operating cost differences between different GA types are different fuel burns, and to burn less fuel you need to do two things:
A third factor, whose value depends on the exact case, is to avoid using a company for maintenance. This is where N-reg scores (if you can find a freelance A&P/IA) and ELA1 (under 1200kg) gets part-way there (if you can find a freelance EASA66). From looking around, I know that many find it hard to dig out a freelance A&P/IA but it appears considerably harder to find a freelance EASA66 (due to employment traditions, airport politics, etc).
In the long run, say over 10 years, it doesn’t matter all that much whether you buy something newer (and spend less on repairs) or something older (and spend more on repairs). Lots and lots of people refuse to accept this, but all they might achieve is moving the inevitable expenditure to some unsuspecting bugger who got a useless prebuy (or no prebuy at all).
Snoopy, this will be your cheapest 6-seater ever: 
Take a FR172 (< 1200 kg = ELA1) and install the approved auxiliary seat bench in the baggage compartment (max. 200 lbs or 90 kg total, obviously children only…) and enjoy the outstanding performance of the 210 hp 6 cyl. injected engine.
Peter wrote:
I would like to see real numbers supporting the “extremely low”
The prices in my post are real life numbers from my plane. Maintenance is done by a very experienced freelancer, I don’t touch anything myself. Of course it’s a smaller plane, but it flies at the same speed as a C172S (115-120kt). The ones with retracts fly 140kt (same fuel burn) and if you add a turbo 150-160kt (+10 liters/h ).
I have flown all kind of planes (and still do) and of course I know you cannot compare a Cirrus, Cessna or Beechcraft to an ultralight BUT like I said it’s a really good option, depending on your mission, if you like to fly a lot of hours and you have to keep an eye on your budget. An ultralight fits for 80% of my flights and I rent for the other 20% (for example aerobatics).
Silvaire wrote:
Cost of money and depreciation are real costs
The prices of high end ultralights have gone up so much in the past years you could sell it after 10 years for the same price.
Peter wrote:
I would like to see real numbers supporting the “extremely low”Note that a valid comparison has to correctly account for incidental factors e.g. if the lack of an ICAO CofA enables owner maintenance and the owner does not account for his time
Well, as a data point, my annual expenses on maintenance and upkeep are consistently about 1/4 of that of the PA-28 on the airfield (our aircraft are similar complexity – fixed gear, fixed pitch prop, Lycoming 4 cylinder engine). Also I’m not sure why an owner who is pro-active with maintenance should account for their own time – the aircraft is not a business asset and is purely operated for leisure, and pottering around the airfield is simply leisure time. I don’t calculate my own “hourly rate” when flying it and add it to the costs – why should I be calculating an hourly rate when doing the 50 hour maintenance items? There’s no opportunity cost, it’s leisure time. It’s not just maintenance, it’s also upgrades. Being able to do ALL of the work myself, with just the need for a freelance LAA inspector to check my work makes it significantly more affordable to make upgrades.
I agree; it’s just that some people buy a “homebuilt” because they read the amazing claims, and buy it without realising that a key aspect of the widely claimed operating cost saving is
and those who are not able to wangle somebody to do it for them end up having a less than satisfactory ownership experience
Peter wrote:
I agree; it’s just that some people buy a “homebuilt” because they read the amazing claims, and buy it without realising that a key aspect of the widely claimed operating cost saving isbeing able to do the maintenance, and
not accounting for one’s time
True, if you buy an RV and you don’t do anything yourself the price / h will be about the same. Because the maintenance is about the same and it consumes a lot of Avgas.
But still some things may be way easier and cheaper, for example upgrading the avionics.
But it isn’t just avionics upgrades is it? As a PA28 owner I’d always assumed a lot of my costs were because I’m forced to by Piper approved parts, whatever may be required.
So the comparison to an RV isn’t simply engine parts/maintenance labour, but also stuff like brake pads, or a new DI, or a new beacon, or a new alternator. All these must be Piper, or STC, approved, whereas on an RV you can go shopping for anything (within reason). And of course, the new Piper seatbelt you need to replace is x8 the price of an RV seatbelt.
I’d always assumed a lot of my costs were because I’m forced to by Piper approved parts, whatever may be required.
You are not. There is a whole big PMA world out there, and accordingly very few items involved in regular scheduled maintenance come from the airframe manufacturer. On my TB20 these come to maybe 200 quid a year. Things like brake pads and most filters come from outlets like LAS Aero, Adams, Saywells, etc. and don’t go anywhere near Socata. In fact one would be positively mad to buy brake pads from Socata although I am sure they will sell them
or STC, approved, whereas on an RV you can go shopping for anything (within reason)
Not if you want to get it past the LAA inspector or the equivalent in another country’s non-cert regulatory regime. Sure there are regimes where you are not under any “umbrella” in terms of something like an annual inspection, i.e. you can exist below the radar, but that’s like arguing that you can do stuff on a certified type off the books (which you can do, in a suitable scenario)…
It is true that with say an RV you can make big savings on the avionics, but how often do you buy new avionics? I think if people put real numbers on this stuff, according to real operational requirements, the benefit is much less than widely advertised.
And if you want to install something which delivers real value, say a TAS605, you will pay almost as much for it. You could do a DIY installation but would Avidyne sell it to an end user and support him with a warranty? Maybe. In the US they would.
There is a lot of disingenuous argument in this area, sadly. One has to look at actual cases and actual operations.
Peter wrote:
It is true that with say an RV you can make big savings on the avionics, but how often do you buy new avionics?
An RV-7 flying friend has just finished his third panel update… my panel (in a certified aircraft) is functional 1980s vintage radios plus Foreflight (iPad) and Stratus portable traffic and weather. Basically the trade off for me is a less generic certified plane that cost less ($35K instead of $75K for the RV), but avionics is harder and less flexible for me. Otherwise his RV has higher performance (not a major issue for my use) and our normal daily maintenance is not much different, we both do most of the work ourselves, but mine is under A&P supervision. Avionics is actually the biggest difference, other than my lower initial purchase price – he can fly IFR and get a lot more data in the RV, at reasonable cost, and is constantly upgrading. I instead spent less initially and now rely on good weather, but (happily, in my area) I mostly get it.
