AirTalk.org Aviation discussions newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  Early Bonanza or Apache?          AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Owning Airplanes View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Brinks Guest Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2003 10:01 pm    Post subject: Early Bonanza or Apache? We've been out shopping for an early model Bonanza, and in the process I went and looked at an Apache that happened to be at the same airport as the Bo I was looking at. The guy selling it was thinking that the Apache was probably as inexpensive to own as the Bonanza. Here's his reasons: 1) Apache has two Lycoming O-320 engines that go 2000 hours without a lot of maintenance. The Bonanza has an E-225 that goes 1500 hours and usually needs cylinder work along the way. 2) The Bonanza parts are expensive, Piper parts are less so. 3) The annuals will be comparable (He thought an Apache annual would be about $1200, which I think is a little low) 4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour, but the Bonanza is going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that much. 5) The props on the Apache are better / less expensive to maintain than either the Beech 215 electric prop or the hydraulic props on the Bonanzas. So I've been doing some research on the Bonanzas and have a relatively good feel for them (joined the ABS, talked to a lot of people, stuff like that) but I don't know much about Apaches. What say the group? Are Apaches a viable alternative to an early Bonanza, or will maintenance eat you alive? Or, will it be comparable to owning a Bonanza? Any information is greatly appreciated! Thanks! Chris Back to top Justin Case Guest Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 1:53 am    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? You're nuts! An Apache will eat your lunch money faster than an old Bo. They're both old airplanes, but Beech built about 4000 of the old airframes. Parts are at least available. You won't get a 16GPH burn on an Apache, nor will you mistreat your Bo enough to burn 13 GPH on the 225. More like 10 or 11. 3 gallons per hour for 1700 hours is 5100 gallon. At $2.20 per gallon, what you say isn't much, is $10,700. Now if you accurately work the spread, it's probably more like a 6 gallon spread, which would double it to $21,400. And you can run autogas in the E225. At 5 GPH (let's say you mixed auto and avgas 50/50) for the life of the engine you save another 6 grand. What you haven't mentioned is the insurance premiums. I'd wager to say the Bo will be 1/3rd of the cost. You may need to look at your mission statement again. Good luck On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:01:40 -0500, "Brinks" <BrinkleyChristianD (AT) JohnNOSPAMDeere (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: We've been out shopping for an early model Bonanza, and in the process I went and looked at an Apache that happened to be at the same airport as the Bo I was looking at. The guy selling it was thinking that the Apache was probably as inexpensive to own as the Bonanza. Here's his reasons: 1) Apache has two Lycoming O-320 engines that go 2000 hours without a lot of maintenance. The Bonanza has an E-225 that goes 1500 hours and usually needs cylinder work along the way. 2) The Bonanza parts are expensive, Piper parts are less so. 3) The annuals will be comparable (He thought an Apache annual would be about $1200, which I think is a little low) 4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour, but the Bonanza is going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that much. 5) The props on the Apache are better / less expensive to maintain than either the Beech 215 electric prop or the hydraulic props on the Bonanzas. So I've been doing some research on the Bonanzas and have a relatively good feel for them (joined the ABS, talked to a lot of people, stuff like that) but I don't know much about Apaches. What say the group? Are Apaches a viable alternative to an early Bonanza, or will maintenance eat you alive? Or, will it be comparable to owning a Bonanza? Any information is greatly appreciated! Thanks! Chris Back to top Frank Stutzman Guest Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:34 am    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? Newps <Nowhere (AT) nowhere (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: Here's his reasons: 1) Apache has two Lycoming O-320 engines that go 2000 hours without a lot of maintenance. The Bonanza has an E-225 that goes 1500 hours and usually needs cylinder work along the way. Not true. Engines last depending on how you take care of them and how often you fly them. Assuming the E-225 engine parts are readily available an overhaul will run about $15K. An O-320 will run about $10-12K for a $20-24K total. Well, parts for an E-225 are NOT readily available. Try finding a new thrust bearing. The rear accessory case will usually need specialized machining that is getting harder and harder to get done. IIRC the overhaul of my E-225 in 1996 was $18K. When it dies, I'm going to look real hard at replacing it with a 470. Quote: 2) The Bonanza parts are expensive, Piper parts are less so. The Piper will break down more. Could be. I've never owned a Piper. But Bonanza parts ARE expensive. Ratheon wants $400 for the door hinge on my plane. Quote: 3) The annuals will be comparable (He thought an Apache annual would be about $1200, which I think is a little low) As in "never in a million years" that low. Ah, er, there is something goofy about that. I pay about that on my owner assisted annuals. I can imagine anything that is the same age, but has twice the engines being cheaper. Quote: 4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour, but the Bonanza is going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that much. I only see 13 gph in my full rich, full throttle climbs. In cruise its under ten. Quote: 5) The props on the Apache are better / less expensive to maintain than either the Beech 215 electric prop or the hydraulic props on the Bonanzas. Well, the electric prop is an orphan. However, it has no ADs and provides the best performance for an E powered plane (assuming its using 88 inch blades). The Hartzel has a recurrent AD that runs me about $400 every 250 hours. -- Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" (1949 A35 E-225 powered, hartzel prop) Hood River, OR Back to top Dennis O'Connor Guest Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? My Apache uses (other than on trips) nothing but the cheapest, garbage mogas I can find - and loves every drop of it... My fuel burn can be ~17.5 gph if I am pushing it, or ~10 gph just floating along at 18 inches and 2100 rpm... My useful is 1121 pounds... Two, 200 + pounders, will sit straight up in the front seats and never touch each other - or the headliner... I have 5 seats... My annual costs approximate those for my Super Viking, other than his base charge is increased $200 for the extra engine / controls / etc... However, I will note parenthetically that my Apache is kept in good mechanical shape and I am serious about IRAN... For instance, the 'up' microswitch on the left main has become erratic (it is 47 years old fer criminy sakes) and is going to be replaced next week... As long as I have to jack the plane we are going to also replace the strut seals all around... (nope, no problem just old seals that some day would be a problem - now they won't!) When the annual comes due in November I fully expect it will be an inspection at the base price, and nothing more... I'm having a ball flying this old beast... Every where I go it draws a crowd of tire kickers... My prop AD blues were cured with $13,000 worth of new Hartzells... The downside to an old Apache is that many have had deferrred maintenance (or no maintenance), and as Justin correctly notes, can eat your lunch - which is just as true of an old Bo... If just buying the plane (either one) is all the new owner can manage financially, then it is going to be a painful learning curve... If you buy an older plane because you like it, and because it is less plane than you might afford, then you will find owning, including the maintenance and upgrading, to be a real joy... Denny "Justin Case" <nospam (AT) formeplease (DOT) com> wrote Quote: You're nuts! An Apache will eat your lunch money faster than an old Bo. They're both old airplanes, Back to top Michael Guest Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? "Brinks" <BrinkleyChristianD (AT) JohnNOSPAMDeere (DOT) com> wrote Quote: We've been out shopping for an early model Bonanza, and in the process I went and looked at an Apache that happened to be at the same airport as the Bo I was looking at. The guy selling it was thinking that the Apache was probably as inexpensive to own as the Bonanza. Here's his reasons: 1) Apache has two Lycoming O-320 engines that go 2000 hours without a lot of maintenance. The Bonanza has an E-225 that goes 1500 hours and usually needs cylinder work along the way. The E-225 is an orphan. Many parts are unavailable, and many mechanics are unfamiliar with them. The O-320 is as common as it gets. The real issue is accessories - vacuum pumps, generators, that kind of thing. Twice as many. If you're looking for a hard IFR machine, though, you really want twice as many. Quote: 2) The Bonanza parts are expensive, Piper parts are less so. No doubt. Bonanza parts do seem to hold up better, though. Quote: 3) The annuals will be comparable (He thought an Apache annual would be about $1200, which I think is a little low) For an annual mostly done by the owner (IA only inspects and does the hard stuff) that's about right for either airplane. Triple that (or even quadruple it) if you want to drop off the keys and checkbook and still want it done right. Quote: 4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour That's about right - maybe even a little high. 65% power is just over 15 gph. Quote: but the Bonanza is going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that much. I think 13 gph is a little high for an E-225. I think the real difference in fuel burn will be about 5 gph. Quote: 5) The props on the Apache are better / less expensive to maintain than either the Beech 215 electric prop or the hydraulic props on the Bonanzas. But there's two of them. Quote: So I've been doing some research on the Bonanzas and have a relatively good feel for them (joined the ABS, talked to a lot of people, stuff like that) but I don't know much about Apaches. What say the group? Are Apaches a viable alternative to an early Bonanza, or will maintenance eat you alive? I think maintenance will eat you alive on an old Bonanza OR an Apache (they are all old) unless you do most of it yourself. The other problem - most Apaches have been trainers. They're beat up. Most Bonanzas haven't been trainers, and are likely to have lower airframe times and fewer issues. Basically, you're more likely to find a good Bo than a good Apache. If you find a GOOD Apache, it will cost you about 30% more to operate than the Bonanza. Buy a cheap Apache (or any cheap twin) and maintenance will kill you. Of course, buying a cheap Bonanza is about the same. Michael Back to top JerryK Guest Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:45 am    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? I think a better question are: 1) Does your flying require a twin? 2) Are you willing to spend the time and money to stay profient in flying the twin? jerry "Brinks" <BrinkleyChristianD (AT) JohnNOSPAMDeere (DOT) com> wrote Quote: We've been out shopping for an early model Bonanza, and in the process I went and looked at an Apache that happened to be at the same airport as the Bo I was looking at. The guy selling it was thinking that the Apache was probably as inexpensive to own as the Bonanza. Here's his reasons: 1) Apache has two Lycoming O-320 engines that go 2000 hours without a lot of maintenance. The Bonanza has an E-225 that goes 1500 hours and usually needs cylinder work along the way. 2) The Bonanza parts are expensive, Piper parts are less so. 3) The annuals will be comparable (He thought an Apache annual would be about $1200, which I think is a little low) 4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour, but the Bonanza is going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that much. 5) The props on the Apache are better / less expensive to maintain than either the Beech 215 electric prop or the hydraulic props on the Bonanzas. So I've been doing some research on the Bonanzas and have a relatively good feel for them (joined the ABS, talked to a lot of people, stuff like that) but I don't know much about Apaches. What say the group? Are Apaches a viable alternative to an early Bonanza, or will maintenance eat you alive? Or, will it be comparable to owning a Bonanza? Any information is greatly appreciated! Thanks! Chris Back to top Brinks Guest Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 2:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? - Thanks! Thanks for all the info! I really appreciate everyone's time and effort in responding to my questions! I still think a twin would be really cool, but we may stay with the single instead for now! Thanks again! Chris "Brinks" <BrinkleyChristianD (AT) JohnNOSPAMDeere (DOT) com> wrote Quote: We've been out shopping for an early model Bonanza, and in the process I went and looked at an Apache that happened to be at the same airport as the Bo I was looking at. The guy selling it was thinking that the Apache was probably as inexpensive to own as the Bonanza. Here's his reasons: 1) Apache has two Lycoming O-320 engines that go 2000 hours without a lot of maintenance. The Bonanza has an E-225 that goes 1500 hours and usually needs cylinder work along the way. 2) The Bonanza parts are expensive, Piper parts are less so. 3) The annuals will be comparable (He thought an Apache annual would be about $1200, which I think is a little low) 4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour, but the Bonanza is going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that much. 5) The props on the Apache are better / less expensive to maintain than either the Beech 215 electric prop or the hydraulic props on the Bonanzas. So I've been doing some research on the Bonanzas and have a relatively good feel for them (joined the ABS, talked to a lot of people, stuff like that) but I don't know much about Apaches. What say the group? Are Apaches a viable alternative to an early Bonanza, or will maintenance eat you alive? Or, will it be comparable to owning a Bonanza? Any information is greatly appreciated! Thanks! Chris Back to top Patric Barry Guest Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 3:00 am    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? I've read the postings in reply to this article and I must say that I'm really disappointed in the guesstimates I see in the postings which are simply not accurate. The Apache is a simple plane to fly and to repair, and parts are available for it. It is true that airframe replacement components are not easily available, but I have never had a problem locating any replacements, and they can also be repaired as easily as on any other plane - certainly at a lower cost than one can repair a Bonanza. Flaps can be reskinned etc. The Apache also qualifies for the autogas STC, and this may be a big savings for this buyer, and is worth investigating. As for insurance costs, and twin is higher to insure than a single - however, in the real world, a competent twin driver stands a better chance than a competent single driver when an engine quits - however the hull value of the Apache is so low that maybe the buyer won't even insure it? Hull rates are so high now that many operators that I have met have chosen to 'self insure' - which means they carry no insurance at all. Annual costs of $1200 for any complex aircraft are too low - whether it be a Bonanza or an Apache. I find that an annual runs about five grand if you have to pay people to do the work for you - it can be less, but the reality is that shop rates (in California anyway) are up to $70-$75 an hour, and to pretend that you'll get a quality annual for less than five thousand is unrealistic - on any complex aircraft. There's always something to replace - a windshield, or a vacuum pump, or wiring harness, or fuel hose etc., and they all add up. One poster inferred that Pipers are not as well built as Bonanzas - this isn't so at all! Piper had a different design on major elements like landing gear and so on, but Pipers are very well built overall, and while the Bonanza is a well built plane, to come along forty years later and suggest that a plane may not be as well built as another plane is a strange suggestion - the Apache is an Apache, light complex twin with small engines and, if maintained, will go forever. "Brinks" <BrinkleyChristianD (AT) JohnNOSPAMDeere (DOT) com> wrote Quote: We've been out shopping for an early model Bonanza, and in the process I went and looked at an Apache that happened to be at the same airport as the Bo I was looking at. The guy selling it was thinking that the Apache was probably as inexpensive to own as the Bonanza. Here's his reasons: 1) Apache has two Lycoming O-320 engines that go 2000 hours without a lot of maintenance. The Bonanza has an E-225 that goes 1500 hours and usually needs cylinder work along the way. 2) The Bonanza parts are expensive, Piper parts are less so. 3) The annuals will be comparable (He thought an Apache annual would be about $1200, which I think is a little low) 4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour, but the Bonanza is going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that much. 5) The props on the Apache are better / less expensive to maintain than either the Beech 215 electric prop or the hydraulic props on the Bonanzas. So I've been doing some research on the Bonanzas and have a relatively good feel for them (joined the ABS, talked to a lot of people, stuff like that) but I don't know much about Apaches. What say the group? Are Apaches a viable alternative to an early Bonanza, or will maintenance eat you alive? Or, will it be comparable to owning a Bonanza? Any information is greatly appreciated! Thanks! Chris Back to top Ron Natalie Guest Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 2:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? "Patric Barry" <pb (AT) ktb (DOT) com> wrote Quote: The Apache also qualifies for the autogas STC, and this may be a big savings for this buyer, and is worth investigating. So does the E-series engined Bo's. Back to top Justin Case Guest Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? Sorry but I must discount Patrick's entire post as he seems like an owner that assists by writing a check. Once you start that process, it never ends and one loses touch with reality. On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:45:42 -0400, "Ron Natalie" <ron (AT) sensor (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: "Patric Barry" <pb (AT) ktb (DOT) com> wrote The Apache also qualifies for the autogas STC, and this may be a big savings for this buyer, and is worth investigating. So does the E-series engined Bo's. Back to top toecutter1962@yahoo.com Guest Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2003 1:52 am    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:44:23 -0500, Justin Case <nospam (AT) formeplease (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: Sorry but I must discount Patrick's entire post as he seems like an owner that assists by writing a check. Once you start that process, it never ends and one loses touch with reality. Sorry, but it's even scarier than that... HE'S THE MECHANIC !! (insert "Psycho" soundbite here) TC Back to top Brinks Guest Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Early Bonanza or Apache? - Thanks! Thanks for all the good info! I appreciate the time everyone took to respond! Chris "Brinks" <BrinkleyChristianD (AT) JohnNOSPAMDeere (DOT) com> wrote Quote: We've been out shopping for an early model Bonanza, and in the process I went and looked at an Apache that happened to be at the same airport as the Bo I was looking at. The guy selling it was thinking that the Apache was probably as inexpensive to own as the Bonanza. Here's his reasons: 1) Apache has two Lycoming O-320 engines that go 2000 hours without a lot of maintenance. The Bonanza has an E-225 that goes 1500 hours and usually needs cylinder work along the way. 2) The Bonanza parts are expensive, Piper parts are less so. 3) The annuals will be comparable (He thought an Apache annual would be about $1200, which I think is a little low) 4) Fuel burn in the Apache is about 16 gallons / hour, but the Bonanza is going to burn about 13 gallons / hour, so 3 gallons / hour isn't that much. 5) The props on the Apache are better / less expensive to maintain than either the Beech 215 electric prop or the hydraulic props on the Bonanzas. So I've been doing some research on the Bonanzas and have a relatively good feel for them (joined the ABS, talked to a lot of people, stuff like that) but I don't know much about Apaches. What say the group? Are Apaches a viable alternative to an early Bonanza, or will maintenance eat you alive? Or, will it be comparable to owning a Bonanza? Any information is greatly appreciated! Thanks! Chris Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Owning Airplanes All times are GMT Page 1 of 1   Jump to: Select a forum Aviation----------------alt.aviationAviation safety EnhancementPlanes, gliders and flying in AustraliaAviation et pilotage (Français)rec.aviationAviation (Aerobatics)Hot air, gas balloons and airshipsHang-gliding, paragliding, foot-launched flightAircraft Design & BuildingInstrument Flight RulesAviation (Classifieds)Military AircraftNaval AviationAviation (Miscellaneous Topics)Owning AirplanesAviators (General Discussions)Aviation related productsAircraft RestorationHelicopters and rotary wing aircraftsFlight SimulationSailplanesAviation (Students)Light aircraftFlying related activities in the UK Airports----------------alt.airportsEdinburgh Airport Glasgow Airport Humberside Airport Luton Airport Aberdeen Airport Glasgow Prestwick Airport  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.