What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintenance?

wabi101 · Post by **wabi101** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:12 am

1980's vintage Beech Baron 58P
1980's vintage Cessna 340A
or 1980's vintage Piper Aerostar 601P

As a dowry, you have to pay for 5 years of maintenance on your future father-in-law's aircraft... which aircraft type do you hope he has parked in his hangar at YZF??

CID · Post by **CID** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:29 am

Baron. Hands down.

Big Pistons Forever · Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:40 am

Cessna 340.

The Baron started life as a simple unpressurized unturbocharged light twin. Cramming in pressurization, turbocharging, airconditioning, de-ice etc etc has made it a very labour intensive aircraft to work on plus the price of any part that says "Beechcraft" will be eye watering.

As for the P Aerostar, well it is a P Baron times ten.

Having flown all three, I also think the 340 is a good compromise between, room and performance. The cabin is nice and roomy, the instrument panel is well laid out, and it is a pleasant IFR platform.

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:11 am

Oh God. That's like being asked if you want your execution by firing squad, guillotine, or hanging!

The Baron is still well supported, but you pay a fortune for Beech parts.

The Aerostar is not very well supported and is basically like a jet with piston engines on each wing in terms of complexity.

Cessna hates legacy aircraft and though they are well supported, the amount of new inspection requirements are making them more expensive to maintain (the 340 is just a 310 with a bigger fuselage and pressurization).

If I was a person who was concerned about maintenance costs, I would not own a twin. If I needed a twin, I would ask myself strongly whether I need pressurization.

Shiny Side Up · Post by **Shiny Side Up** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:43 pm

Cessna hates legacy aircraft and though they are well supported, the amount of new inspection requirements are making them more expensive to maintain (the 340 is just a 310 with a bigger fuselage and pressurization).

You keep seeing Cessna 300 and 400 series aircraft (with I think the 303 exempt since it was a fresh design, and of course not including the new Corvalis) at rock bottom prices if they have that nasty wing spar AD due on them. A big question mark that certainly hangs over whether one of these might be better or worse than the other two.

If this is the cost of a dowry though, she's not worth it.

kevinsky18 · Post by **kevinsky18** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:03 pm

If you're concerned about the cost of maintenance stay away from twins. Next give serious consideration to Homebuilts.

Big Pistons Forever · Post by **Big Pistons Forever** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:49 pm

Shiny Side Up wrote:
Cessna hates legacy aircraft and though they are well supported, the amount of new inspection requirements are making them more expensive to maintain (the 340 is just a 310 with a bigger fuselage and pressurization).
You keep seeing Cessna 300 and 400 series aircraft (with I think the 303 exempt since it was a fresh design, and of course not including the new Corvalis) at rock bottom prices if they have that nasty wing spar AD due on them. A big question mark that certainly hangs over whether one of these might be better or worse than the other two.

If this is the cost of a dowry though, she's not worth it.

Unlike the 400 series the majority of Cessna 340 were operated privately so most are thousands of hours away from the the big SID inspections. That been said it is still a complex aircraft with many expensive parts. The owner of the 340 I occasional fly (a very nice totally snag free aircraft) plans on spending 50 K a year on maintainance and he is usually not disappointed

azimuthaviation · Post by **azimuthaviation** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:52 pm

CID wrote:Baron. Hands down.

Until you find corrosion in the elevator.

wabi101 · Post by **wabi101** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:18 am

Pie you didn't offer any answer to my question, but I'll answer yours, I'd take a firing squad. Can't imagine losing my head and hanging seems a bit degrading.Shiney Side's comment gave the future in-laws a big scare, they have relented and agreed to pay for all the parts.
---- You; however, have to do all the labour. What would you choose?

Would you rather deal with the baron wing bold AD or the 340 spar AD? Anyone worked on an Aerostar?
The Barons and Cessnas that I've looked at have the TSIO-520NB and WB's. How does these compare to the Aerostar's Lycoming TIO-540

straightpilot · Post by **straightpilot** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:07 am

Probably C340. But it won't carry anything so I don't know why anyone would buy one.

Pressurization really isn't that bad - just another system.

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:44 am

straightpilot wrote: Pressurization really isn't that bad - just another system.

Go look a the prices for some bleed air valves or outflow valves or pressurization controllers. Then look at the access and the plumbing for some of these. Then factor in the hourly rate of an AME who has to figure out why the cabin keeps climbing. Then if all of these are normal, look at the surface area of the aircraft he now has to check for leaks with the help of another AME.

Then there's all the other stuff that tends to go along with pressurization, like the pressurized mags and trying to keep the ignition system from arcing. The de ice and anti ice systems, the storm scope or weather radar, the oxygen system, the cabin heater, the life limited or otherwise specialized windows, the door seals, it goes on and on and on.

It is all worth it if you are crossing the continent regularly and can justify the slow climb up to high altitude. Otherwise it is just a headache and get yourself a middle of the range twin like a regular Baron, an Aztec, or a 303 (those are nice, I'd take one of those over a 340 any day if I was paying for maintenance).

To answer the OP's question, I'd go with the 340; though for flying, the Aerostar is a true 'pilot's aircraft' as all Ted Smith designs are.

kevinsky18 · Post by **kevinsky18** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:13 am

You could look at dropping the pressurized requirement and get a 4-6 place oxygen system. between $500-$1500.

bombardierfixer · Post by **bombardierfixer** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:16 pm

Far be it to point this out...but...

Dowries were given to the perspective son in law to take the daughter, not the other way around... You may wish to renegotiate, unless they are paying for the entire wedding in the south seas with a thousand of your closest AvCanada buddies...

Just saying.

wabi101 · Post by **wabi101** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:19 pm

Oxygen system doesn't prevent decompression sickness however, so I need pressurized...

Bombardier fixer... you just turned my world upsidedown...thanks bud

Go Juice · Post by **Go Juice** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:00 am

What about a King Air 90 ?

Pat Richard · Post by **Pat Richard** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:25 am

Just so I understand this scenario - as a condition of marrying a chick you have to provide maintenance on the father inlaws aircraft for 5 years?

So you're going to be paying the father for your wife?

wrenchturner · Post by **wrenchturner** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:22 pm

That may be her father's way of saying keep away from my daughter. I would seriously consider finding another wife

Pat Richard · Post by **Pat Richard** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:26 pm

No shit, I mean how bad can anybody want to be married?

An effing ludicrous scenario right out of the middle ages.

What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintenance?

What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintenance?

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena

Re: What would you choose if you had to pay for the maintena