Airplane maintenance costs.

Holocene

Well-Known Member
Would there be any significant difference between a C150 and a PA28 in terms of maintenance costs?

I mean I know the PA28 uses a larger displacement engine, but in terms of maintenance costs (repairs, overhauls, routine etc), are they much higher than the 150?
 
My old IA said if you want to deal with every AD that comes out, buy a Piper with a Lycoming and a Hartzel. My 150 hasn't been too bad on annuals, but there are a few things to look for. For instance, if it has the electric stall warning or, that horn is $1500 from Cessna.
 
I've owned both. The Lyc is bulletproof. I'd say the Cherokee landing gear struts and hydraulic brake system and rubber fuel cells could be higher maintenance. I'd steer you more towards buying the bigger plane if you need or want a bigger plane. All things being equal, the Cherokee might cost a little more to maintain but it's more airplane. I'd say a lot more airplane, really. So, it might be worth it. Either plane could be a nightmare if you buy the wrong one.
 
You will use the Cherokee a lot more if you actually plan on ever going anywhere.

What wrenching I have done on pipers, they aren't so bad to work on. (As a non-A&P, but caring very much what the parts cost). Just don't buy a Beech :)
 
Except for fuel burn and engine overhaul costs, you'll see about the same expenses between the two.

This is why they are common rentals at FBO's & schools and not P210's or P-Barons. The 150 and PA28 are relatively inexpensive to operate, maintain and insure.
 
I think it will depend a lot on individual airplanes. Some of those seemingly "good deals" have had a lot of deferred maintenance, eventually you gotta fix stuff and you pay. A lot of airplanes are out there with old AD's that a lot of IA's will conveniently ignore. If you buy it and your IA wont, guess what... you pay. Regular maintenance and replacements can add up a lot too...older airplanes need new parts regularly, replace a tire a tube and tire $150, overhaul a gyro - $400 vs $1500 for a new one, replace a transponder $1900, replace an alternator $500 sometimes you can clean and rebuild for $150, then there are weird parts like $1200 Cessna rheostats that with research you can find equivalent legal alternate parts for pennies on the dollar... there is no cheap airplane, but affordability can be relative and the informed owner willing to research can save a lot. A Cherokee 180 that has been flown a lot and maintained proactively might have much lower maintenance costs than a 150 that has been sitting in the corner of a hangar without an annual in 5 years.
 
Thanks for the replies.

Would be buying to more or less keep.

Believe me I'd rather have a Cherokee, but if the 150 was that much cheaper to maintain I would consider it.

Maybe I should consider the 172 as well.
 
Any thought to an older mooney?

We have an M20F at the club with the old Johnson bar gear. Gear maintenance is cheap and easy. Useful load is 1000lbs, carries 29 gallons a side and burns 10 gph at 24/24, down to 5.9 at 20/20. Just a basic IFR panel, nothing fancy.
 
Mooney might be exceeding my budget just a bit.

I do see plenty listed in the 35K range, but my guess is for the same money (or less) I could get a Cherokee in better condition???

Or maybe I'll just buy a tattered 150 for $15K, and use the other 20K to get a head start on maintenance, lol.
 
Unless you buy them new (not possible) or in the exact same shape it will depend on the actual condition of each plane.

Look for something that hasn't been sitting around, but regularly flies and has preventive maintenance done to it, get an experienced A&P to check out each airplane you are considering.

Fixed costs of a PA28 will be higher then a 150, but total costs not necessary.
 
Mooneys are excellent planes for actually traveling if you are only flying one or two people. Anything more than that and they are SMALL inside.

My biggest concern with them however is mx costs, no idea on parts availability.

Personally I wouldn't own a smaller Cessna or Piper product if I actually wanted to visit places in the plane. Way too slow and low on capabilities.

If you just want to burn holes in the sky consider an r/c plane with FPV setup...a lot cheaper...
 
Mooney might be exceeding my budget just a bit.

I do see plenty listed in the 35K range, but my guess is for the same money (or less) I could get a Cherokee in better condition???

Or maybe I'll just buy a tattered 150 for $15K, and use the other 20K to get a head start on maintenance, lol.


That is a hell of an MX bill! What about a C140? You could probably pick one up for $20,000-25,000 in good condition. Great airplane to fly, but you probably want to put that $10,000 into hangar funding.
 
Or maybe I'll just buy a tattered 150 for $15K, and use the other 20K to get a head start on maintenance, lol.

Not a bad idea, really. I'd look for a one in good shape with a high time engine. Talk the guy down to 15 and then have the engine overhauled. That way, you start fresh with a fresh and known history on the engine. I bet you'd be surprised how much 150 15K can buy these days. I have a 73 Cherokee 180 with a mid time engine, King IFR with a 430. I'd be lucky to get 35K for it these days.
 
There's nothing wrong with buying an airplane with deferred maintenance and building it up, it can be a good option, you just need to be realistic when you get into it. I bought my 150 with low airframe time and pretty low engine rebuild time with good comps for very cheap but I knew going in it had been flown little and had several problems, but I knew it needed work going in and saw that as an opportunity to build up the airplane I wanted. I did a lot of improvements (new/overhauled gyros, intercom, radios, plumbing, wiring, tires) and I ended up with an airplane with a lot of nice new reliable parts, the equipment I wanted, a few cosmetic and safety improvements (like new seats, carpet, and four point harnesses). I could've bought something that was in better condition up front, but now for the same money I have the airplane I want with a lot of new stuff and I know that airplane better than the back of my own hand.

As far as utility, I wouldn't put too much weight regarding travel unless that really truly honestly is something you are going to do (read: something you already do). The simple fact is 90% of airplanes never go further than 2 hours from their home airport. I know people with 182's and Mooneys who fly them on a 300 mile trip twice a year. That's a whole lot of added cost to save 2 hours per year in travel time... A 150 or 140 is fine for one man or two smaller people to travel recreationally. Yes they are slow, but so what, isn't the point to be enjoying the flying? They burn little gas so operational costs are low and so people who own them actually fly them. You know what I see flying the most at my airport? Cessna 150, Piper Cubs, a Wagabond, and a handful of experimental aircraft... because the owners can afford to go out and have fun every other day, and when you want to go somewhere you can still get there a lot faster than by car. Now if you want to haul anything, definitely look at a four seat aircraft. If I were not using mine for flight training and trying hard to keep costs as affordable as possible for my students, I would prefer a four seat aircraft for personal use. I'm not a big fan of 172's (they are fine, I just kind of sigh every time I see or get in one), I'd rather have a PA28-180 for an all-around personal aircraft... for something with a little more fun/character check out Pacers (this is what I'd personally like if I had only one airplane for myself and needed to balance utility/fun/costs).

Owning airplanes is fun, and if you like to tinker (and have a friendly A&P to supervise/approve your work), one with deferred maintenance but a good core can be a nice option to get the airplane you want.
 
Mooneys are excellent planes for actually traveling if you are only flying one or two people. Anything more than that and they are SMALL inside.

My biggest concern with them however is mx costs, no idea on parts availability.

Personally I wouldn't own a smaller Cessna or Piper product if I actually wanted to visit places in the plane. Way too slow and low on capabilities.

If you just want to burn holes in the sky consider an r/c plane with FPV setup...a lot cheaper...

I wouldn't do long trips in our 20F with more than three. The F and up does gain an extra 5" in the rear seat legroom and 5" in the baggage area.

We did north Vegas to Salina, Kansas as one leg in December and still had 14 gallons in the tank after a 7.1 hour leg. That was VFR over Santa Fe before turning NE?

I was shocked how little it burned for the speed the first couple times I used it.
 
I wouldn't do long trips in our 20F with more than three. The F and up does gain an extra 5" in the rear seat legroom and 5" in the baggage area.

We did north Vegas to Salina, Kansas as one leg in December and still had 14 gallons in the tank after a 7.1 hour leg. That was VFR over Santa Fe before turning NE?

I was shocked how little it burned for the speed the first couple times I used it.
Turn around and go the other way...150 knot headwinds at least up in the flight levels, I've seen 80 down low in the winter time!
 
Turn around and go the other way...150 knot headwinds at least up in the flight levels, I've seen 80 down low in the winter time!
I did it two days before that at 12k.

Total flight was 15 hours there. 13 back. Westbound was crappy weather most of the way. Jim Kelly airport was first stop, then Wyoming pass to salt lake then south. Would have been a bit better with O2. Really didn't have big winds either direction.
 
My old IA said if you want to deal with every AD that comes out, buy a Piper with a Lycoming and a Hartzel. My 150 hasn't been too bad on annuals, but there are a few things to look for. For instance, if it has the electric stall warning or, that horn is $1500 from Cessna.


My 28-140 sat for nearly ten years. An Extensive annual by an IA covered 50 discrepancies, quite a few AD's and ran over 10 grand.
Very nice flying bird now ( 3 new tires this month ), but 10 gallons an hour fuel burn usually.
 
Other things to consider. A 150 is a little more cramped and can't carry the same luggage. An O-320 Cherokee shouldn't carry 4 ppl unless your leaving the tanks about half full. The 150 will cost less to just go fly for an hour, but the Cherokee has longer legs (much larger fuel tanks) if you're going somewhere. The Cherokee is much, much hotter aircraft in the summer. The vents are horrible.

They really have such different 'personalities' that I wouldn't recommend choosing based on maintenance. Fly examples of each. And not just one example. An early straight tail 150 feels different than the later Omni-vision 150. And with the Cherokees, you have the 140, 160, 180, and 235 hp versions.
 
Back
Top