expenses of old airplanes

[KarlWK]

A friend and I are looking to pick up a used plane. There are two 170s in our area, a ragwing and a B. I'm not having much luck swaying him to get one of these oldsters--he prefers a '70s 172.

He's convinced the 60 year old classics will incur far higher maintenance costs than a 35 year old plane. Is this so? I imagine that after about 30 years, most moving parts on a plane have been replaced once, and after that, what wears out year to year will be about the same.

Corrosion is certainly a concern the older a plane gets. I gather the C-145/O-300 is more expensive to keep running than an O-320.

Insurance on a tailwheel airplane is a few hundred more per year, and a taildragger will be more likely to sit in the hangar on windy days, but I've enjoyed flying tailwheel planes. He hasn't, and perhaps this unknown is his biggest obstacle.

[jrenwick]

I have three "older" airplanes, and I can't think of any expense that I incurred simply because the airplane was 50 or more years old. Most expenses, big and small, are for things that have a much shorter life than that, such as fabric replacement, engine overhaul, cylinder reconditioning, paint, interior refurbishing, avionics, tires & brakes, etc. If you've bought a well-maintained airplane with everything in good condition, I wouldn't think the expense of it would be affected by age at all. An airplane built in the '70s is just as likely to need major work as one built in the '50s. It all depends on how it's been maintained over the years.

IMHO....

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I agree with John 100%. I can not think of a single expense that has cost me more because I have a 60 year old airplane. Now there are a few parts you can't just go order from Cessna for a 170 but I'll bet you won't order those same parts from Cessna for a newer 172 should you need them.

I also think that if your going to be leaving the 170 in the hanger on windy days I'll bet the 172 stays in the hanger as well.

Fact is you can get a hell of a deal on a newer 172 and do all the same stuff we do with a 170. Well maybe you won't be landing it on a river bed anytime soon but most of us don't do that. If you just want to bore holes in the sky or get to point A from point B, there are lots of newer aircraft you can buy. But what you will rarely ever get with a 172 or Cherokee is anyone complementing you on how good it looks as you walk across the ramp and after you land that 172 in a cross wind no one looks twice. But taxi up in a 170 and people think your special. And you are, cause you have chosen to fly in style in a 60 year old airplane. Your doing what a lot of folks would like to do.

[ronjenx]

I think the more important issue is you like the 170, and your friend would rather have a 172.

Going in on a plane with another person can be very risky, no matter how well you know the other person.

It would have the best chance of working if you both were excited about the same aircraft.

[KarlWK]

Like a marriage, an airplane partnership does require compromise. I like 172's well enough, so it's nothing I'll shed a tear over. I don't fly enough to justify carrying by myself all the fixed cost owning a plane involves.

Honestly, I am at the moment simply curious if age is any indicator of the cost of keeping up an airplane. I think my friend's estimation is formed by his having restored both old cars and old machine tools. If you acquire something that's been neglected for decades--such as a house--it takes a long time to catch up with the deferred maintenance. The comments about expenses being a function of how well the plane was kept rings true.

[GAHorn]

A Lyc 320 has only 4 cylinders versus the TCM O300's six cylinders. If a "top ovhl" or complete cylinder replacement occurs to both engines ...then the Lyc might be less expensive due to the fewer cylinders.

But that is still not an apples-to-apples comparison because you can't predict that two IDENTICAL engines would suffer the need for complete cyl replacement at the same time.... much less attempting to foresee the future on two different engines on two different airplanes. It's a spin of the roulette wheel.

But I know which engine is more reliable. (Hint: There aren't any Lycomings that have flown 3 months continuously without landing.)

A 172 and a 170 are essentially the same airplane. The difference is that 172's can be operated by any slouch that can spell "land-o-matic". 170's, however, are flown by REAL Aviators!

[rydfly]

I think the more important issue is you like the 170, and your friend would rather have a 172.

Going in on a plane with another person can be very risky, no matter how well you know the other person.

It would have the best chance of working if you both were excited about the same aircraft.

That's exactly the situation that got me into my current aircraft... the previous owner bought it with the idea that his buddy would buy into it and they'd share the expenses. Unfortunately for him, his buddy decided an old tailwheel plane just wasn't his "cup of tea" and the two eventually parted ways with some hard feelings involved.

[Harold Holiman]

I have owned Cessnas from age 1949 to age 1976 and as far as age see no difference in costs. They have had Continentals from 145 HP to 230 HP and Lycomings from 150 HP to 180 HP and in all instances I much prefer the smoothness and power and reliability of the Continentals. I was "persuaded " to buy a couple of training wheel Cessnas because my wife prefers tricycle, but I much prefer conventional gear for, versilility, looks, and requiring skill and proficiency, rather than just "driving" a Land-O-Matic on and off the ground. Just my opinion,

Harold

[jrenwick]

There's just something deeply satisfying about landing a taildragger, vs. tricycle gear, isn't there? I get a little rush every time it works out just right.

[GAHorn]

Flying a tricycle is like sex with no orgasm. (which may be the only reason some women put up with it.)

[KarlWK]

There's just something deeply satisfying about landing a taildragger

Bingo! The trick is proving that to the uninitiated.

[cmsusllc]

A Lyc 320 has only 4 cylinders versus the TCM O300's six cylinders. If a "top ovhl" or complete cylinder replacement occurs to both engines ...then the Lyc might be less expensive due to the fewer cylinders.

But that is still not an apples-to-apples comparison because you can't predict that two IDENTICAL engines would suffer the need for complete cyl replacement at the same time.... much less attempting to foresee the future on two different engines on two different airplanes. It's a spin of the roulette wheel.

But I know which engine is more reliable. (Hint: There aren't any Lycomings that have flown 3 months continuously without landing.)

Hey George! What is the most reliable piston aircraft engine ever built?
Can you spell LYCOMING? As in O-360!!

Scott...53B...O-360 LYCOMING

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Oh Scott now you went a did it. The Lycoming verses Continental argument. Ok It was George that might have started it. He failed to say whether there was any MMO or MOGAS involved now that would really add some spice to it.

[GAHorn]

A Lyc 320 has only 4 cylinders versus the TCM O300's six cylinders. If a "top ovhl" or complete cylinder replacement occurs to both engines ...then the Lyc might be less expensive due to the fewer cylinders.

But that is still not an apples-to-apples comparison because you can't predict that two IDENTICAL engines would suffer the need for complete cyl replacement at the same time.... much less attempting to foresee the future on two different engines on two different airplanes. It's a spin of the roulette wheel.

But I know which engine is more reliable. (Hint: There aren't any Lycomings that have flown 3 months continuously without landing.)

Hey George! What is the most reliable piston aircraft engine ever built?
Can you spell LYCOMING? As in O-360!!

Scott...53B...O-360 LYCOMING

OK, Scott.... Let me refresh your memory: The Continental O-300 holds the WORLD'S RECORD for longest flight on record which was 64 days 22 hrs 19 min. Set by Robert Timm and John Cook in a Cessna 172 . They took off from McCarran Airfield, Las In 1958 and flew until the following year, landing in Feb. 1959. The airplane and engine are still hanging above the baggage claim area in the Las Vegas airport.


Tell me about ANY Lycoming that has ever done that!

[Harold Holiman]

A Continental also powered Jeri Mock on her around the world solo flight. No Lycoming has ever done that either. Many years earlier the Key brothers in Meridian, MS, set an endurance record that lasted for many years with a Continental . I don't know of any endurance records Lycoming has ever set.

Harold