What am I missing?

[stackj]

What am I missing? Why are there suddenly so many Skymasters for sale?

It can't just be cost... Mine has been keeping me broke for years!

[hharney]

It really makes you wonder, are the light twins becoming an albatross? With fuel costs, upkeep, and maintenance of an aging machine, what will time bring? Even hanging at the airport it seems like guys are having a hard time justifying owning a light twin. Owning a light twin for recreational / occasional business use in the past was difficult but today it is really tough. New pilots that have the resources are buying the Cirrus / Columbia type machine or building a kit. The idea of buying a 35 year old, light twin aircraft quite frankly scares them. With the programs that these new aircraft companies have (training, financing, lease back) it is really attractive to these new breed of pilots. It has always amazed me how inexpensive you can purchase some of these light twins. But sometimes the purchase price is the easy part. Once you buy one of these aircraft the cost of maintaining and flying these machines can be a real unknown burden. I just put together a spread sheet of all the expenses that my partner and I incurred in just 18 months of owning a Twin Comanche. We have been very conservative with our expenses and there are lots of upgrades we would like to do but haven’t. In 18 months we spent over $18K (annual, insurance, repairs, minor upgrades, hanger) not including our time doing most of the repairs and not including fuel for the 105 hours flown in 18 months. That’s hard for me to justify let alone if I was 100% owner. Yeah, it’s not a big surprise but most people don’t really look at the true cost of ownership until it’s too late and you have to give up.

I am not sure that I any advice on your question Jim. I don’t know if there is any sign that truly points to the answer other than slowing economy, higher fuel costs and aging aircraft. Pilots love to fly, but one has to be able to justify it. It may take selling the Skymaster and buying a T Craft so that flying can continue. Although the T Craft isn’t going to get you anywhere for business flying it will at least get you up in the air for the weekend pancakes. It’s a critical time for general aviation. Only time will tell how and if we can continue to enjoy this wonderful freedom of flying.

[kmack3211]

Herb, I agree with you completely. I posted to the message forum recently asking about partnership/shares type of ownership. My cost per hour last year ran $455.00 per hour without fuel. Granted, my son and I only used the plane 57 hours, but it is getting hard to justify the cost. I am planning on flying to Sarasota, FL in March, which I did last year at a cost of over $700.00 in gas. This year it will cost more because of the gas prices. Hard to tell myself it makes sense when I can fly for free since my son is an airline captain, or I can by a round trip ticket for right around $260.00 direct into Sarasota.
On the other hand, I was able to attend a trade show for the day in Louisville Kentucky with 2 of my partners without spending 10 hours in the car. Down and back in under 3 hours from Michigan City, IN. It is those kind of days that make me want to keep the plane.

[WebMaster]

And then there's the Ercoupe to Alaska.

http://ronkilber.tripod.com/alaska/alaska1.htm

I think what you are seeing is a real down trend in twin engine piston engine airplanes. The cost of a 421 has dropped >30% in the last 2 years. I think maintenance is a large part, but so is the high cost of 100LL. While 421's have seen their market deteriorate, the 425's (Conquest I's) have seen steady or rising prices. They are turbine aircraft. Turbines seem to holding their own, and pistons seem to be losing ground. Look at the difficulties that Adam is going through. No one wants a piston airplane anymore, not when you can get a turbine, have an assured supply of fuel, at reasonable prices.

It's not user fees that will kill general aviaiton, it is the high cost of fuel. Part of the whole FAA funding thing calls for even higher taxes on aviation fuel.

I remember reading the stories of the fly-in at Abacos, and Don Hickman paid $1.85 at one of his fuel stops. We will never see prices like that again. Yet many of us bought planes when that was the reality.

[Skymaster337B]

Hysteria! The same thing happened in the late 70's (thanks Carter). And in the early 80's a Skymaster could be had for around $10k. This is a time to buy, for those of us who can afford the money and time.

[n86121]

From my odd perch at Potomac Airfield, where we charge $18/mo and give fuel away at our cost (now $4.56), I noticed that when the 100LL hit about $3/gal, almost all of the 'casual' flying stopped. Suddenly many low power, low speed cruisers from airports all around, Cherokee 140's etc, showed up for sale on our bulletin board.

So much for the $100 hamgurger.

On the other hand, thanks to TSA and the 'convenience' of commercial flying, I'm seeing more people than ever buying high-performance x-country machines, to avoid commercial flight, to travel for business aned vacations, than ever before.

My theory is that GPS navigation and WX in the cockpit have dramatically increased the utility of GA AS TRANSPORTATION, while the utility of relying on airlines has become ever worse and worse.

For example we had a meeting in NJ, about 4 hours drive each way from DC (My airplane being overhauled). Airlines would have been a joke; so driving up the night before, dinner, hotels, etc, for the next morning 10AM meeting, (you cannot get to NJ in 4 hours going through all the rush hour traffic), and loss of the next day driving back, cost out of pocket about $700. In the 'thrasher could have left that AM, had the pow wow, and been back by lunch; maybe $200 in fuel. No, not cheap, but when factoring everything in, a LOT cheaper than driving.

Our sales guy enrouote to a 2 day conference got stranded in Raleigh (his continuuing flight was CANCELLED enroute!). So we lost two days of him doing anything useful (no way to get back), $700 in airfare for flying the friendly skies, a $1,500 booth fee down the drain, un unused hotel room at the destination for two days, plus another in Ralieghm, and about $250 to get our booth materials shipped two way to nowhere.

And the lost opportunity of being at that conference in the first place.

Makes GA start to look rather good.

I'm also seeing a lot of Mooneys all of a sudden. Very efficient if you aren't carrying a lot. Great solution for small guys with wife/girlfriend and some light luggage. (I'm 6 ft 180, and flying commercially I get to inspect my knees against the seat in front. 1st Class gets you TWO bags of peanuts and another few inches).

Another example making me feel better about my 'thrasher: A friend with a gorgeous loaded Bonanza recently DROVE 22 hours each way to Minnesota with his family. I asked why. He said with family and now two full-size kids, the Bonanza doesn't have the payload or range to carry them plus any luggage. The utility of his bonanza, weighed against his mission, has become low.

I often have my family of 4 plus LOTS of stuff; and a lot of my flying is over water (Wash DC to Hatteras NC). Having owned english and italian cars, helicopters and fixed wing, I know with confidence that no matter how much you spend, things DO break. Two points for the inline twin.

A friend in his single recently had an engine quit right after takeoff with his teenage daughter aboard; put both of them in intensive care. They'll survice, but think of what he has to live with now. His first 12,000 hours flying nothing happened, so I guess his single was statistically safe.

The statistics are good, but somebody gets to be the statistic.

Twin accident rates are comparable to singles; but perhaps that's because most of the events in a twin never end up in the NTSB reports at all? What's the number of unreported events that remained unevents because of being a twin? Anyone want to hazard a guess? In 1200 hours in my 337 since 1989, I've now had three events that if I had been in anything OTHER than the 337, I and others would have been in great physical danger. Because of the inline 337 twin, only my balance sheet was threatened; I have never been in danger.

So I've just decided I need my redundant twin-engine flying Winnebago (1969 T337D) and have just sunk $70k into new rear engine, fresh engine (firesleeved) and hydraulic lines, re-rig landing gear, etc etc etc. It gets maybe 5-8 gals/mile; a bit worse than a Chevy Suburban, but a lot faster and point to point.

Have you checked airline ticket prices, when you get away from the competitive hubs? Compare that to fuel, and time enroute, and almost anything short of flying to the Galapagos islands gets closer to coming out even.

So lets see what happens. A lot of the buyers into the highline singles are low time pilots, with a lot of money, buying transportation with high tech avionics. Until relatively recently, the only way to get the increased utility of modern avionics has been in a new airplane, so that's what they've been buying. As new avionics in old airplanes become comprabale to the stuff you could only buy in a new aircraft, the old aircraft, and twins, will come into their own. Fuel cost isn't a factor with a Columbia buyer.

Probably the biggest difference are th tax incentives for buying new. I believe there is a rapid depreciation schedule that knocks off the HUGE part of the acquisition cost, if you're in the right bracket. That's the real competition.

So I plan to keep tooling around in my T337 for awhile; a long while.

D www.potomac-airfield.com