Two fleeces, two tracksuits, thick socks, wooly hat, glovesQuote
Ha! You must ’ave looked like a Canadian Peter!
Self maintenance is a very convenient way of mitigating cost for a very small fraction of owners who have the combination of: Own the plane, have the time and skill to perform the tasks, and the good relationship with the “shop”. If any of those is not possible, it all falls apart.
Any well maintained aircraft will cost about the same as any other of the same complexity – if maintained by the same “system”. With the exception of a bit of documentation (‘cause you really must have most the same anyway), there is no less effort and cost to keep a non certified aircraft well maintained, as a certified one. People think there is, but those people are probably shorting themselves on maintenance which is prudent and appropriate – again certified or non certified. Diligent owners I know simply follow the appropriate maintenance program for the aircraft, and maintain their non certified the same way. There is little cost cutting in the actual maintenance of an aircraft, it’s the peripheral costs which can be trimmed by DIY.
Or, you built it, and are diligent about the maintenance, because you know it so well. Great, but if you value your time, by the time you bought the kit, and built the plane in the first place, you’d be cheaper just to pay the street price for rental.
It is a simple fact that it costs more money to be off the earth, than most earthbound activities. It can be mitigated here and there, but for the most part, you just have to pay the price.
That said, most aircraft owners have no option but to use a company, because they don’t have the contacts and/or they don’t want to get that involved…
One of the reasons I will never own an EASA CofA aircraft (unless this sort of thing changes with the recent talk of reducing unnecessary regulatory burden). It’s my backside in that aircraft, I want to know personally who is doing the work, and I want the option of doing the donkey work myself. Not deal with company bureaucracy.
On the original poster’s point: Certain vintage aircraft are reasonbly inexpensive to buy (and are available in syndicates) and operate. Our Auster is full of charm, is fun to fly, and the LAA permit system is significantly less onerous than what is imposed on EASA light aircraft. (Ours is not the most economical Auster Autocrat since the Gipsy engine was changed for a Lycoming O320, which has a higher fuel burn and more power, but on the flip side the O320 is a bit less maintenance intensive than the Gipsy and Cirrus engines). The LAA mag also had an article on the Taylorcraft this month, another good vintage aircraft designed by the same guy. The Taylorcraft generally is a bit lighter than the Auster Autocrat and normally has an A65 or C85 engine doesn’t burn too much fuel.
A brilliant post by Pilot DAR above…
Any well maintained aircraft will cost about the same as any other of the same complexity – if maintained by the same “system”. With the exception of a bit of documentation (‘cause you really must have most the same anyway), there is no less effort and cost to keep a non certified aircraft well maintained, as a certified one. People think there is, but those people are probably shorting themselves on maintenance which is prudent and appropriate – again certified or non certified. Diligent owners I know simply follow the appropriate maintenance program for the aircraft, and maintain their non certified the same way. There is little cost cutting in the actual maintenance of an aircraft, it’s the peripheral costs which can be trimmed by DIY.
There are however some savings to be had on components if documentation is not required. But these are not usually significant in the big picture (on SEPs).
Christ! The “link” and “quote” buttons should be further apart !!! Have to finish this later.
[ I edited it for you but then you deleted it – Peter ]
[ To produce quoted text, highlight it and press the Quote button ]
Self maintenance is a very convenient way of mitigating cost for a very small fraction of owners who have the combination of: Own the plane, have the time and skill to perform the tasks, and the good relationship with the “shop”. If any of those is not possible, it all falls apart.
Just for the record, among the individual US aircraft owners I know personally that fraction is over 90%.
The main cost issue with maintenance is the dedicated facility and/or company, neither of which (if required by regulation) add much value for the owner. The other factor is any mandatory paperwork, which is typically just a way to tax and therefore adds negative value. Regardless, if aircraft have their own hangars my observation is that the ‘system’ changes into one of people helping each other, whether certified or Experimental, for charges that are reasonable. There is no reason why it shouldn’t, the aircraft are in general remarkably simple and they are safer when maintained within that kind of community.
Outside temperature is definitely an issue when doing maintenance in a unheated building. Of course that is not an issue in all climates but where cold OAT is an issue I think I’d want my annual done in early spring, not mid winter. Or in an ideal world in a heated work space. This brings to mind the concept of folding wings so you can take the plane home in the winter – which can be just as good a place to work as a dedicated hangar, or better, in my experience.
……very small fraction of owners who have the combination of……Quote
Silvaire is right. I mis typed, I meant to say “pilots” where I said “owners”. Yes, aircraft owners, who have their own hangars, are well on their way to the ideal combination. Pilots, who do not own the aircraft, nor a place suitable to work on it, are a long way back of those economies…
I’ve owned my 150 for 28 years now. Back then, I passed over the opportunity to be partners in a C 182 or C 310, electing instead, to spend my “excess” money on a modest plane, and the property I needed to have a runway and hangar for it. I have most everything I need to take care of the plane here. But, you could hardly call it “low cost” if you factor in buying, improving, and maintaining the property. You’re going to pay one way or the other to fly.
I am rather intimately familiar with a very nearly completed purchase of a hangar, about 10 years ago, big enough for exactly six 10m-wingspan aircraft (PA28, TB20, etc), where the lease was GBP 230k and the total of ground rent and business rates came to GBP 23k/year.
Charging hangarage at GBP 500/month (no VAT) which is about the most one could then charge in the south east, would just cover the 23k outgoings.
For reasons unknown the hangar was sold to a laundry!
Obviously nobody but an aviation enthusiast is going to spend 230k of their cash on a hangar and have to for ever deal with five other aircraft owners/operators, “hangar rash” which nobody admits to, and all the other usual stuff, for a zero return.
The other way to make that deal work would have been to forget the five others and stick one TBM in there, with my TB20 in the corner, and get 30k/year from him alone, and minimal hassle.
No wonder the GA world over here is in such a mess!
Folding wings works too… and its not an original idea! (assuming you own or can find off-airport space)
Unfortunately there is a wide quote range for maintenance by licensed engineers. On one vintage British type, the quote range for an annual inspection might be £1.5k~£4.5k, and strangely the more experienced engineer on type is at the lower range.
As the type becomes more esoteric, the more exposed you might be to a monopoly engineering supplier, who may want to charge as much as he/she thinks you might bear.
I try again
Great, but if you value your time, by the time you bought the kit, and built the plane in the first place, you’d be cheaper just to pay the street price for rental.
I value my time, that is why I spend lots of time in my shop to build aircraft. There are lots of ways you can build your own aircraft. You can use lots of time and lots of money, you can use lots of time but little money, or you can use little time and lots and lots of money, you can even use little time and little money and anything in between. The end result is the same. An aircraft with unmatched performance in one or several categories, and a truly unique experience and satisfaction. Comparing this to renting an average spam can is more like making and eating a 7 course meal compared with unwrapping and chewing a gum.
Regardless, if aircraft have their own hangars my observation is that the ‘system’ changes into one of people helping each other, whether certified or Experimental, for charges that are reasonable. There is no reason why it shouldn’t, the aircraft are in general remarkably simple and they are safer when maintained within that kind of community.
Exactly, and there is no reason why professionals cannot be part of the community. In Norway when building experimental aircraft we have to have an inspector that is approved by the CAA. He could be a anything from an experienced builder to a certified engineer. “My” inspector is the head of maintenance of a helicopter company. They have 20 something helicopters and also do maintenance on a more general basis for rotor and fixed wing. He also has worked several years at the CAA. He takes nothing for the job of signing the papers and helping me with this or that. He also has offered me to use their facilities when the time comes for the planes to leave my shop for “final assembly” (putting on wings etc). Right now they have an Exp Carbon Cub there doing “final assembly” before first flight, as well as a restored from individual pieces Cessna. Why does he do this? Because this is just as much a hobby and fun for him as it is for me. And probably also because he feels some level of responsibility for the experimental and recreational community having the position he has.
