Last edited:

#### Joe Fisher

##### Well-Known Member
The cheep est 4 seat airplane all around is a Tri Pacer.

#### nerobro

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
This does beg the question of flying cheaply. I wonder what the minimum cost of a part23 airplane would be.

#### JayKoit

##### Well-Known Member
You would be better off buying a Cessna 182. You would have a much better plane and it would cost less in the end. Prices are very reasonable these days. Builders delude themselves into believing that they will save money on a homebuilt.
I completely agree the 182 is a better plane, and one of my favorites. However with the bigger engine drinking more fuel, you have to budget 3-4 more gallons per hour ($18-24/hr), which if you fly 100 hrs a year that an extra$1800-$2400, plus an extra annual reserve of$1200, plus the cost of an a&p for fixes and maintenance, plus the cost of certified parts. In "Brian's Flying Blog", he mentions that his well cared for 1974 182P costs him $1200 for the annual inspection, plus about$2000 in parts/fixes/maintenance at annual and throughout the year. Adding those totals that's $5000-$5600 per year difference, less the cost of parts you'd fix/replace yourself on the CH 640. As a homebuilder you can (I know, many don't choose to, but you can) do your own annuals and maintenance, and save a lot of money there. However, not having owned either plane Tom, you may be correct. It just seems to look on paper that the CH 640 would cost less year to year -- if you do the work yourself.

By the way, speaking of awesome homebuilt family haulers, is that a Stallion in your avatar? I've heard that's a pretty sweet machine.

I would have said a Cherokee Six, but otherwise Tom is right. There is the difference of buying an old plane vs. building a new one, so maintenance will certainly be hire on the old one, but you'd still likely be ahead financially in the end.

If, on the other hand, it's the building experience that you are after, I think there are less expensive, if much longer to complete, homebuilt options from kits or plans. The Compair series, for example, if you want to go composite. The Christavia Mk IV if you want to go steel tube and wood. The Jodel Mousquetaire if you want to go all wood. And the Murphy Moose if you want to go all metal. There are many more.
I agree, and let's not forget the CH 640 WITHOUT all the fast build options. If you buy a standard kit and FWF and put it all together, you could do it for $65K. Less if you buy a mid-time O-360. The Murphy Moose likes REALLY sweet as well, but 3500 hours to build....ouch... I dont think that would be a better airplane than an equal priced Bonanza, Saratoga, or 182; just new. Although the fuel would be horrendous, you can buy an Aztec or Baron 55 and take the kitchen sink. If you have to have new do what most do which is buy everything for a RV10 and have someone build it for$50k and put your name on the certificate. For 100K i would have both a Pitts S2A and Bonanza v35; one for me and one for family.
Again I agree, the Bonanza, Saratoga, 182, all I think are arguably better than the 640, and maybe some disagree, I have only flown a 182 and not a 640 so I can't even compare. However I have seen a couple vids from 640 builders who LOVE their planes -- but the point of this thread was to discuss a brand new plane that carries 4 people for under 100K, and it's built in less than 8 weeks. And since it's homebuilt you can save costs with maintenance, etc. As for the Aztec/Baron, yes the fuel would be horrendous, and the maintenance, and the insurance, etc. etc. so I think that's in a different league altogether.

#### Mark Z

##### Well-Known Member
My personal opinion... The 182 is the best handling of the Cessna fleet. The Bonanza is the easiest airplane that I've ever flown and will do anything and more than the 182. A mechanic once told me that if there were only Bonanzas out there they would be looking for a job. A man needs a slow airplane, a fast family hauler, and a hotrod aerobatic toy. Again, just my opinion. Oh I might add one of them needs to be a taildragger.