What would you buy with a 50k budget?

Newps <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
> $50K budget for a cross country machine that won't eat you alive with
> fuel bills? Late 50's Bonanza. 180-185 MPH on 11-12 GPH. 150 MPH on
> 8.5 GPH. Mine's a 64 and I have a bigger engine but the airframes are
> basically the same. I would guesstimate $1000-1500 per year in
> maintenence outside the annual.

Well, Scott, as the owner of a '49 Bonanza, I'm not so sure I'm so sanguine.

Performance wise, I usually figure 155 MPH on 9.5 GPH so I won't quibble
with you there. But I really think the maintenence between my A model
is can be signifantly different from your S model. Parts for the E-series
engine are becoming difficult. Better hope you don't need parts for the
electric prop or the Hartzel for that matter. Very expensive, if you can
find them at all.

It really also doen't take much to blow the $1000-$1500 in non-annual
maintenace. Priced out a cabin door hinge? Six years ago I spent $500
for a SALVAGED one. An and older plane is just going to have had more
time for things to wear out.

Good thing I've been in love with this hunk of metal for the past 15 years.
It would be tough to justify at this point.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

"Newps" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0aCdnXkU4uXpP63VnZ2dnUVZ_oHinZ2d@bresnan.com. ..
> Kirk Ellis wrote:
>
>>
>> Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
>> buying something that is almost as old as I am.
>
> And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't look
> at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then inevitably they
> pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are inefficient. They
> have their missions but cross country isn't one they're good at.

Yeh

C182. Just a terrible cross country machine. :)

Sometimes Usenet just astounds me.

Howard

On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:40:57 -0600, Newps <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>And remember, when you start looking at fuel burns most people don't
>look at gas mileage, only how much an airplane can burn. Then
>inevitably they pick something like a 172, 182 or a Cherokee that are
>inefficient.

A terrific point.

GPH is only half of the equation when actually going places.

Kirk Ellis wrote:
..
>
>
> Are half century old airplanes still viable machines? It sounds scary
> buying something that is almost as old as I am.
>

Never fly anything younger than you are, someone has to have experience :-)

More to the point a well maintained older airplane is just fine. Mines
a 1950 and until the engine swallowed a valve it was just fine. We had
an odd-ball engine (GO-435) and decided to reengine, then we just kept
going, but if the budget had been tighter we really didn't have to all
the stuff we did to the plane (new just about everything). I like Jim's
idea of buying a decent, but ragged out plane and fixing something every
year (if you have the time to work on it without negatively impacting
flying time too much). Ideally a nice long "vacation" period that goes
to the airplane is great.

Margy

B A R R Y wrote:

>
> That's not how I read it at all. He said "efficiency".

Exactly.


>
> Lots of folks only look at GPH, and don't give airspeed or the typical
> load, proper attention.
>
> There are airplanes that are a lot faster for just a tad more fuel,
> especially with a light load. In reality, more efficient.

To compare apples to apples you have to do MPG. I had a 67 182, at top
of the green, 23"/2450, it would indicate about 135 MPH in the summer
and about 140 in the winter at 4500 feet(11 mpg). That's burning about
12 to 12.5. In the Bo I indicate 145-150 MPH at 8.5 GPH at my 45%
setting of 19"/2100(17.5 mpg). At 75% like the 182 the mpg drops to 13
but your going 55 mph faster.

Frank Stutzman wrote:
> Newps <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> $50K budget for a cross country machine that won't eat you alive with
>> fuel bills? Late 50's Bonanza. 180-185 MPH on 11-12 GPH. 150 MPH on
>> 8.5 GPH. Mine's a 64 and I have a bigger engine but the airframes are
>> basically the same. I would guesstimate $1000-1500 per year in
>> maintenence outside the annual.
>
> Well, Scott, as the owner of a '49 Bonanza, I'm not so sure I'm so sanguine.
>
> Performance wise, I usually figure 155 MPH on 9.5 GPH so I won't quibble
> with you there. But I really think the maintenence between my A model
> is can be signifantly different from your S model. Parts for the E-series
> engine are becoming difficult. Better hope you don't need parts for the
> electric prop or the Hartzel for that matter. Very expensive, if you can
> find them at all.

Right, I wouldn't touch an A model(1949) with a 10 foot pole. Stick to
the late 50's or newer like I said and you get at least an IO-470 and no
prop issues. Same basic engine and prop that's in a 182.

Newps <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Right, I wouldn't touch an A model(1949) with a 10 foot pole. Stick to
> the late 50's or newer like I said and you get at least an IO-470 and no
> prop issues. Same basic engine and prop that's in a 182.

Just to add a few more tedious details...

The H model came out in '57 with an odd O-470-G (I'm not sure its used in
airframe) that was carbed. The J model came out in '58 with a more common
injected IO-470-C.

So how much can you spend on a J model Bonanza? I dunno for sure, as I
don't pay too much attention generally. However, I did a 2 minute glance
around the 'net and the cheapest asking price I could find was $55,000.
Given the current market, one could probably could find something cheaper,
but somehow I don't think it would be a lot cheaper.

Besides the very early models (35,A35,B35) are the best flying Bonanzas.
I know because Old Bob told me so ;-) (its an inside joke).

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

Sorry post posting proof-reading:

Frank Stutzman <stutzman@skywagon.kjsl.com> wrote:

> The H model came out in '57 with an odd O-470-G (I'm not sure its used in
> airframe) that was carbed. The J model came out in '58 with a more common
> injected IO-470-C.

Should read:

> The H model came out in '57 with an odd O-470-G (I'm not sure its used in
> ANOTHER airframe) that was carbed. The J model came out in '58 with a
> more common injected IO-470-C.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

A Cessna 150... There is a very clean and well maintained one on my
field for $17K... (KHYX)
Kepp the remainder of the money for gas, oil, and annuals..

denny

On Mon, 19 May 2008 03:15:20 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
<misaksen@************> wrote:

>.... reality check time: <snip> the truth is it has
>gotten pretty tough for Joe Average!
>
>So what'dya wanna do, take a timeout or fly?
>
>Good Luck.
>

The attrition rate for recreational pilots will only grow. Wages this
year are falling behind inflation and will continue to do so. For
many, recreational flying is no longer an affordable luxury / hobby
that it was ten years ago. It's becoming a much more elite fraternity.

Being a part of that fraternity would definitely be a great adventure
but the amount of cash required to join that club is problematic for
Joe Average.

It's time for a timeout...for it's quite sobering to see how much cash
is required.

And thanks for your advice. Where do I send the fee?