I thought about creating a new thread but not sure what to call it. Bits of the SDMP and “nonprofit club” discussion are all over the place, as a search for e.g. “sdmp” shows. Also these things are quite country-specific; the UK has one scenario, Sweden has another very different one, Germany has something else, Italy and Greece get “really really interesting” with their “sporting body” concessions 
etc which really nobody will want to write about openly.
I still think, per here, that the financial benefit of going past TBO is very small, if accounting on a “going concern” basis. If OTOH the organisation has no money in the bank then the benefit is infinite 
Probably, the larger schools are near the former end while the smaller schools, and most private owners, and near the latter end. And this is relevant to the Rotax v. O200 discussion, it seems.
Peter wrote:
I still think, per here, that the financial benefit of going past TBO is very small, if accounting on a “going concern” basis. If OTOH the organisation has no money in the bank then the benefit is infinite
Excess money in the bank (specifically) is a waste, but in terms of using money to fund flying I think it’s better to use money to make money than spend it on something that isn’t actually necessary and provides no benefit, which is exactly the case when overhauling an engine that is running fine. I invested $30K in a property in 2003, it’s now paid for and the net income is four times my hangar rent.
For a syndicate, excess money is essential for unexpected repairs.
e.g. in our case glue failure in the wing.
Maoraigh wrote:
For a syndicate, excess money is essential for unexpected repairs.
I can see that for group ownership you’d want to have enough idle cash to get the plane flying quickly without delay, especially given the relatively unknown ability of individual group members to come up with cash on short notice. The risk is not easily controlled otherwise, and many group members may have no interest in plane ownership other than flying an immediately serviceable example.
For individual owners I think the equation is broader and different: I keep enough cash on hand to replace my plane twice over, but that cash also covers other important risks – potential rental property vacancy, repairs, totaling a daily driver car and so on. I generally prefer to use my discretionary income to make more money, keeping enough cash on hand to cover maybe two of (let’s say) ten ‘disasters’ that could occur simultaneously. If for some reason the number were three instead of two, I’d sell something to raise the extra money needed. Or if one of the disasters was my aircraft engine making metal I could stop flying for six months to raise money for the repair without anybody but me caring. I could also do the overhaul slowly, largely myself with A&P friends help, learning as I go and saving money. It hasn’t happened yet and I prefer to use income productively versus e.g. insuring the aircraft hull, keeping large dedicated cash reserves or (on topic) doing unnecessary overhauls to manage the risk of suddenly having no plane to fly – a situation that would not actually concern me greatly.
https://rotax-cessna.com/2021/01/19/co-operation-of-blue-skies-aviation-oy-and-atol-avion-oy-ended/
I’m not quite sure what this means but I guess its a backward step.
Atol went under due to costs related with certifying their amphibian.
Maybe the old engine is easy to run after all?
Peter wrote:
Maybe the old engine is easy to run after all?
I don’t think there is any question that the Rotax 912 is a better engine than the O-200.
The O-200 destroys its centre main bearing and the cylinder heads will need work at about 1200 hours. The former you can do very little about the later can be vastly reduced by using UL91 but its availability isn’t exactly widespread.
The Rotax will go all the way to TBO without any engine repair work. With the microlight operators getting 4000 hours without any engine trouble. The engine ancillaries however will need attention.
I don’t think there is any question that the Rotax 912 is a better engine than the O-200.
There is much to question about it.
One thing I have experienced during the extreme (record breaking) and continuous cold weather we have had during January and February is that Rotax in let’s say below -10 to -15 deg C depending on details, is as good as useless because:
Technically this could be fixed by using exhaust heat instead of liquid cooling heat to warm the cabin and defrost the wind shield, but not with a certified Rotax (not “just like that” at least)
