Tco

[emteeoh]

I've been thinking about how much it costs to own and operate a plane. I was hoping I could get some feedback on what I think it is, so far.

 

- I'm running on the assumption I fly about 100 hours a year.

- I've read that a good rule of thumb is that every hour in the air costs about 15 dollars in maintenance.

- going by a recent ad for hangar space at CYKF, hangars cost 600/month

- I was told insurance will cost 6000 a year. (however, I've seen ~1000 in the forums here. I dunno if that's CDN vs US, or too much hull insurance...)

- Fuel burn is about 10 gallons per hour

- fuel costs aboout $4.50/gallon

 

So in total, that's 7200 for hangar, 1500 for maintenance, 4500 in fuel, and 6000 for insurance, or 19,200 per year. Does that sound about right? Am I forgetting anything?

[Drew Swenson]

should be able to cut your hanger cost in half by sharing. Should be able to cut your insurance by only insuring what you need (I do "not in motion" only). If figure that if I crack it, I'll fix it. Things beyond my control, I want my money back.

[michaelj]

Great idea on the "not in motion" clause. That would cover most of the ugly incidents that could happen. My Cozy dodged straight line winds while tied down outside. The airplanes in the hanger were banged up badly when the hanger collapsed. My Cozy was parked 100 feet away without a scratch.

After flying a C150 for six years and a Cozy MkIV for four I can verify that the Cozy was less expensive to fly. Just having the repairman's certificate saved a lot of money on annuals. Composite airplanes have virtually no wear and tear. The prop does need constant attention.

[argoldman]

Great idea on the "not in motion" clause. That would cover most of the ugly incidents that could happen. My Cozy dodged straight line winds while tied down outside. The airplanes in the hanger were banged up badly when the hanger collapsed. My Cozy was parked 100 feet away without a scratch.

After flying a C150 for six years and a Cozy MkIV for four I can verify that the Cozy was less expensive to fly. Just having the repairman's certificate saved a lot of money on annuals. Composite airplanes have virtually no wear and tear. The prop does need constant attention.

 

One caution about "not in motion"

 

In motion is usually defined as from throttle advance for takeoff until first turnoff after landing. While this seems like a great idea, there is one caveat. That is damage done to your craft subsequent to an engine failure (your liability should still be in force). After an "arrival", whether the plane can be flown, or is in pieces, You probably have to hire a wrecker to get it to an intermediary place (generally a auto wrecking yard (unless close to the airport) with attendant significant charges. You then have to get it to where you can rebuild it etc, etc. If is unrebuildable you are stuck with a bunch of splintered fiberglass and metal with which you must do something, with no reimbursement, only the added expenses listed above.

 

Then there are the psychiatric bills.

 

I'm not saying don't do not in motion only, but go into it with eyes open.

 

Don't ask me how I got so familiar with this aspect.

[michaelj]

Understood. I put one down 9:30 PM , no moon, just starlight. We banged up the airplane some but rebuilt it and flew another two years. Fortunately the C150 had appreciated in value and I broke even without compensation from insurance.

[Drew Swenson]

Rich---agreed---it is a risk management game. The best thing to do is see how much for not in motion compared with the full insurance. Then figure out your "break even point." See if that makes sense.

 

On the one hand if there is 1 dollar difference between the two, you would be crazy not to purchase the whole thing. On the other hand, if you could buy another plane in two years just from the difference, you would be crazy not to do that too. Obviously, the answer is somewhere in the middle.

 

On the comment of condition inspections-----much more agreement---much cheaper to do on the experimentals.

[jeff122670]

this post got me thinking............

 

so i called my insurance company and got a quote for a 1995 Velocity FG (hull value of $60K).

 

i got a quote for $1638/yr.

 

i also did a quote for $55K hull and it was $1601.

 

i made comment that it seems things are driven by hull value only, and was told with my "experience and ratings", that was a true statement. (i am a 3400 hour ATP/CFI)

 

so given all of that, it seems there must be some point in the insurance "world" where YOU as the pilot transition from a liability (thus added to the hull insurance) to just a pink body in a hull (that is insured). i dont know where that transition point is, but i would imagine it is with high time in make/model and total time.

 

what am i saying? get more time. ESPECIALLY is someone is quoting $6K for insurance. when i read that, i almost fell out of my chair (literally, i was leaning back and almost fell over )

 

anyway, something to think about:

 

my friend is insured as a part time flyer on an RV (because he has low time) while the "owner" (who has a TON of time) is the "primary" insuree (is that a word??). seems similar to what i did when i was a kid and was a "part time" driver on my parents policy.....

 

something to think about........i hope it helps..

 

Jeff