These costs are stunning, given that my TB20 costs me 2-3k a year.
It would be 2x that if I used a company, but there is still a huge difference to these turbo and pressurised types.
For anyone planning to move up, it would be interesting to see a breakdown of where the difference comes from.
@Peter I was actually thinking the mx budget for the PA46 looked quite reasonable, especially if it is based on replacing components before they fail. Too many high end complex IFR type, and am thinking about some legacy MEPs, seem to be operated on a fix when a component fails basis. A bit like some elements of public infrastructure!
Turbine types are known to have very large airframe type checks at certain milestones, eg 10,000 hours.
@denopa mentioned several very sensible preventive medicine component replacement, but there are several that might not come to mind. Control cables, steering components, retraction systems, tyres (tread OK but just old), electric wiring. You then have the cosmetics of keeping an interior up to scratch etc
At 2-3k @Peter your mx budget is around what a five year old Audi might easily chew up (brakes, tyres, cam shaft, :))
I wasn’t trying to be exhaustive, don’t want to scare people too much 
@Peter, yes clearly it’s a step change from a TB20 or PA32. If I look in detail in my maintenance bills (and I do), it would be perfectly possible to run it quite a bit cheaper (8-9k/y). Does the exhaust system need to be removed and lubricated at each annual? Do you change the TIT gauges every couple of years or do you monitor their peak? Do you test exhaust and injection leaks? Do you change the emergency gear extension spring every 24 months? etc. Many people don’t, and 90% of the time it makes no difference. But many choose to gold plate things a bit as a risk management decision.
@denopa not gold plating, it sounds like you have a very good supervision of your programme.
RobertL18C wrote:
seem to be operated on a fix when a component fails basis. A bit like some elements of public infrastructure!
As long as that public road is not permanently closed for tiny temporary maintenance 
Flyingfish wrote:
@Antonio I do not know if the E400 would fall under ELA2, but willing to dig, can you point me to the regulation?
The FAA rule I believe is crucial is the provision for so called “owner produced “ parts.
Any such rule under ELA 1 or 2?
A lot about that has been said here in the forums
As to ‘owner-produced parts’ the kind-of-equivalent would be in EASA Part 21.A.307 (c)
in the case of ELA1 or ELA2 aircraft, a part or appliance that is:
1. not life-limited, nor part of the primary structure, nor part of the flight controls;
2. manufatured in conformity to applicable design;
3. marked in accordance with Subpart Q;
4. identified for installation in the specific aircraft;
5. to be installed in an aircraft for which the owner has verified compliance with the conditions 1 through 4 and has accepted responsibility for this compliance.
Ibra wrote:
As long as that public road is not permanently closed for tiny temporary maintenance
It is the risk to drinking water and the electricity grid that I was thinking of. Low tension trips of the grid are likely to occur more often as a consequence of poor maintenance of essential infrastructure. And yes, the odd bridge may collapse.
Peter wrote:
it would be interesting to see a breakdown of where the difference comes from.
One aspect is that since the environment/type of flight that the aircraft fly-in is more demanding, pressurized owners tend to be more conservative on maintenance.
In my case ,a lot of it has been catch-up and pre-emptive maintenance: magneto and alternator overhauls, cylinder and lifter replacements, labour-intensive removal, reinstallation of parts in the pressurized area requiring resealing, replacing some of the pressure seals, overhauling pneumatic gyros, vacuum pump replacement, some plastic interior parts, one cabin cooling fan with damaged bearings, SB for structural modification on the tail attachments, strobe light power supply, elevator trim actuator OH, wing spar eddy current inspection, complete exhaust removal, lube, inspection and reinstall, turbo check valve repl, some SIDS inspections, OH ldg actuator, replace LDG hydr lines, replace all cabin SCAT tubing, replaced several faulty EGT sensors, biennial xpdr and pitot-static check, avionics SW upgrade and memory battery repl, this year I am installing the B&C stby alternator, another 3AMU’s, but that is an upgrade, right? (should be essential for this type of flight) the list goes on… plus a standard annual is a lot of work on these aircraft!
Most of the above is not specifically tied to the ‘P’ in P210. A standard T210 is still subject to a lot more work than a TB20,maybe not so much more than a TB21, but still a step above: a TSIO520 is no IO-540C. As a minimum, not factoring the TC, maintenance should be according to HP, 25% more! Add another 20% for TC and you get there.
In exchange for the above we enjoy a 200kt cruiser that uses 16GPH and carries 4-6 people and luggage to places 1000NM away (or 450NM and back without refuelling) above most of the wx…how else can you do that?
Edit: ah, and we can land and take-off easily on 1800ft grass fields if they are obstacle-free, more depending on obstacles.
I just read the 2001 Aviation Consumer (AC) article on the " 1 in 10" Mirage owners who experienced “inflight engine failures”
It was in response to a survey run by one Mirage owner with a number of fellow Mirage pilots, that 92 answered, and of which 10 confirmed having experienced engine failure or severe power loss in flight.
I personally know of one unreported PA46 incident where one turbo outlet hose came loose at altitude and power was lost causing a return to base. Unless you are flying over the Himalayas or are one of those who does not touch the mixture control, this should not cause a loss of the airplane or, even less, life.
AC went onto ask Lycoming to qualify the study and they were aware of “12-14 inflight engine failures” out of 500 engines flying at the time, which is 2.8%. Obviously Lycoming does not hear of all incidents, especially those out of warranty which do not cause an accident. Even then ,they also think that the survey, although run in good faith, only factors the sample of population that responded, and that engine failures are likely overrepresented in such sample. Happy owners tend not to waste their time responding, whereas angry owners are more likely to respond.
The actual figure is likely in the middle or probably around 5%, over an average ownership period of 6 years back on 2001 (ie one failure every 120 years’ worth of flying at whatever average annual rate these aircraft are flown, probably around 150hrs.).
Another mentioned factor is that in most cases, there is no accident involved. No numbers are given, but it can be inferred that only 10% of these result in an accident.
If we turn that into hourly rates, that is about one engine failure accident every 120×150/10% = 180000 hrs or about 100000 flights.
This is high when put in context with the overall light aircraft accident rate in Europe of 1/100000 flights for ALL causes. Also, around that time, Lycoming introduced reinforced connecting rod bearings for the Mirage engine which accounted for maybe a quarter or a third of the failures (possibly half of the ‘hard’ fails ie not factoring the odd loose turbo hose) and I would expect most of the engines in the fleet would have been retrofitted by now (is there no AD for this?). If my numbers are right, this would give an updated more reasonable rate of 1/200000.
I am sure MMOPA run a similar analysis. Can someone with MMOPA access confirm if my analysis above ties in with whatever was discussed therein?
Fly safe!
EDIT: I have been mixing pears and apples above on accident rates: the 1/100000 EU stat is fatal accidents, whereas the 1/100000 PA46 rate is total (fatal+non fatal, although limited to engine failure-caused).
The correct comparison would be 1/100000 for the PA46 vs 1/20000 for EU part NCO accident rates. This makes much more sense and means the in-flight PA-46 engine failure-caused accident rate is 1/10 the average of the overall EU Part NCO accident rate.
Just as we know: accidents happen mainly for reasons other than engine failures, even on PA-46’s, so I insist:
Fly safe!
