BeechBaby wrote:
Le Sving, does your club have a website.
Sure, but it’s not the super flashy kind in any way 
http://www.vaernesflyklubb.no/
Peter wrote:
There is a lot of “apples and oranges” comparison being done here.
Yes. Microlight vs experimental vs old-timer vs EASA CofA are apples and bananas and pineapples and blueberries. Money have the same color though. If an old apple cost 1€ to purchase, but 10€ to eat, then people tend to go for brand new blueberries at 10€ per dozen and only cost 1€ to eat.
LeSving wrote:
here really is no need for this attitude mh, just because you for some reason just love to disagree with me.
Personally, I don’t care if we agree, but all you wrote is factoring maximum costly items for certified aircraft and disregarding the same items on experimental aircraft. That is known as confirmation bias. I get it, you like experimental aircraft and for some reason seem to hate everything sounding like certification, and that is okay, but it doesn’t hold up to an objective view. And that is a pity, because exactly those claims of horrific certified ownership costs would be one reason of people backing off from doing the kind of flying they like. I have had several examples, when people came with the illusion that owning an aircraft was much more expensive than every other activity they could imagine. But this is far from true, as Urs will happily tell you. I recall many people spending less money on their aircraft than their collegues on bowling, RC modelling, camper vans, golf. Or even on cigarettes and alkohol. They have found that operating an aircraft – yes, an old VFR “spam-can” – is very well inside their flying budget and give them satisfaction and pride of ownership to a reasonable cost. If you now insist that we need to spend 80k/a in maintenance for our four private aircraft, you couldn’t be farther from the truth and feed some sort of elitist view on aircraft ownership that hinders aviation in part to fight the decline.
And doors? Windows? Instruments? Struts? Come on, be honest. All of those parts demand attention in every aircraft, whether new or old, certified or experimental. Your claim that this won’t be the case is just neglecting reality. There is no such thing as a maintenance free aircraft, not certified and not experimental. And often, the microlights at our airfield need more attention in maintenance, because of necessary weight savings and thus lower quality materials (hoses, tires, etc.).
LeSving wrote:
Those microlights are much better maintained by their owners than the usual private spam can in any case.
If your aero club mechanic is so much worse than any owner, maybe there lies your problem. And I think you seem to be very biased if you really think a dedicated pilot-owner would be less competent if he owned a certified aircraft against a microlight. And furthermore you seem to not take into consideration, that ELA1 allows everyone to do everything on an aircraft – even complex maintenance – as long as it is released to service by a Part66 CFS, and that many maintenance and refurbishment tasks can be released by the pilot-owner based on Appendix VII to Part-M.
Nobody is denying, that experimental aircraft allow for more freedoms than certified aircraft and in a way this might reduce a bit, but these levels (over 4000€ less annual maintenance cost on similar simple aircraft) is just ridiculous and contradict the experience of many owners throughout Europe. .
LeSving wrote:
What is “real use” of an aircraft?
Yes. Microlight vs experimental vs old-timer vs EASA CofA are apples and bananas and pineapples and blueberries. Money have the same color though. If an old apple cost 1€ to purchase, but 10€ to eat, then people tend to go for brand new blueberries at 10€ per dozen and only cost 1€ to eat.
One cannot compare a company maintained CofA plane with a owner-maintained non-CofA plane.
The scenarios are completely different.
The latter works only for a sole owner who can and wants to spend many hours of his time doing the work. It may also work for multiple owners if they all work together. It will not work in the by far most common multi-owner scenario where at least some owners can’t or won’t do the work; you get resentment – unless the person(s) doing the work get some kind of “payment” e.g. by a reduction in the flying cost, or some other payment in kind.
And anyway the cost saving is obtained only (as I have said so many times) by the owner(s) valuing their time at zero. So it is an illusion. The illusion is acceptable to many, because using your time is a good opportunity. I do owner assisted servicing and I save thousands a year that way, but I am under no illusion that I am saving money!
Nobody is denying, that experimental aircraft allow for more freedoms than certified aircraft and in a way this might reduce a bit, but these levels (over 4000€ less annual maintenance cost on similar simple aircraft) is just ridiculous and contradict the experience of many owners throughout Europe. .
Exactly!
Well – Norway is indeed a very expensive country and an 172 / PA28 annual easily costs 4000EUR incl. VAT oil/filers, provided there are no or only minor snags.
recently our club PA28 had one magneto failing 500h inspection, to put in a new one (Slick) attracted a bill of 3000 EUR incl VAT, postage and part. On the other hand we were able to borrow a magneto from the workshop for a few days/flight hours, so we were not grounded. That also carries a value.
Workshops in Norway charge about 105 EUR/h, they also charge for the time they use to do paperwork. Sometimes you feel they work really slow as well, at least when the bill is presented.
G
Beech Baby said
I like the sound of how you run yours. In a sense we share the same vision.
I agree especially as an L18C Super Cub (not just a Cub) in Norwegian army colours features prominently in the fleet. If you might please add a Stearman, Pitts S2A and an SF.260 – I might have to learn Norwegian.
LeSving wrote:
Our rates are probably the lowest in Norway and Europe by the looks of it, and this is particularly true for the G1000 equipped C-172 SP.
Well… Judging from your website, your rates are higher than our club rates for equivalent aircraft except that the decline in value of the Norwegian krona compared to the Swedish krona have indeed made your G1000 C172 slightly cheaper than ours since this summer.
But since both the cost and salary level in Norway is higher than in Sweden, it might be that your aircraft rates are less than ours in relation to average purchasing power.
mh wrote:
If your aero club mechanic is so much worse than any owner, maybe there lies your problem. And I think you seem to be very biased if you really think a dedicated pilot-owner would be less competent if he owned a certified aircraft against a microlight. And furthermore you seem to not take into consideration, that ELA1 allows everyone to do everything on an aircraft – even complex maintenance – as long as it is released to service by a Part66 CFS, and that many maintenance and refurbishment tasks can be released by the pilot-owner based on Appendix VII to Part-M.
Why not just read what I write instead? The mechanic also must be payed, and it is much better paying him less to maintain a newer attractive airplane, then paying him more to constantly fix an old “wreck”. The 172 SP has proven to be extremely reliable (like a brand new microlight more or less) and does not require any of the ad hoc maintenance of an older aircraft. It is always available unless it is on scheduled maintenance. I’m not a big fan of G1000s, full modern IFR, autopilot and so on, but most people obviously are, and that aircraft attract people and more than pay for itself.
Nobody is denying, that experimental aircraft allow for more freedoms than certified aircraft and in a way this might reduce a bit, but these levels (over 4000€ less annual maintenance cost on similar simple aircraft) is just ridiculous and contradict the experience of many owners throughout Europe.
Show me some numbers then. Of course, if you have a microlight or an experimental you can also get someone else to maintain it for you, but you don’t have to, you can fix things yourself, also annual. You don’t need certified parts and so on. The largest difference however, is that you can re-build the whole aircraft yourself when it gets old and worn, or just old fashioned. New panel, brand new engine and new paint and upholstery along with a re-rig etc, and the aircraft really becomes like new from inside out. For an RV this will cost 50k, for a C-172 it will cost what? at least 200k or something. I have a hard time imagining it’s even worth thinking about. A C-172 is a complex design compared with an RV. A homebuilt is designed to be simple and straight forward in this respect.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well… Judging from your website, your rates are higher than our club rates for equivalent aircraft except that the decline in value of the Norwegian krona compared to the Swedish krona have indeed made your G1000 C172 slightly cheaper than ours since this summer.
I think Sweden traditionally always have been a better place for private aircraft than Norway, price vise at least. The member price is 1440 NOK/h for both the Safir and the G1000 SP. 960 NOK for the Army Cub. That is 156€ and 104 €
Peter wrote:
And anyway the cost saving is obtained only (as I have said so many times) by the owner(s) valuing their time at zero. So it is an illusion.
An illusion for whom exactly? The only illusion here is that for some reason that nobody even remembers anymore, a light aircraft has suddenly become so complex and touchy regarding “safety” that it requires an industrial certification process on par with the thermonuclear industry, only to bring a couple of persons from A to B for their own enjoyments sake.
GaryStorm wrote:
Well – Norway is indeed a very expensive country and an 172 / PA28 annual easily costs 4000EUR incl. VAT oil/filers, provided there are no or only minor snags.
Where the argument goes off track is claiming owner can’t maintain a 172 himself. He can. He needs a sign off for certain things, but he can do really a lot. Then you’re not comparing two aircraft, but two owners – one willing to do the work (valuing his time at 0 €) and one paying someone else to do it.
Where can a certified plane hit you are upgrades, instruments, avionics. But not everyone is into building and ULs have hard time competing on utility.
LeSving wrote:
The mechanic also must be payed,
LeSving wrote:
Show me some numbers then.
The Morane has annual costs of around 700€ for ARC, Avionics, Parts and Fluids. The Cessna 172b is around 1200€ due to more avionics and more flight hours, the DR250 is inbetween those two. Without paperwork, it’s around 100€ – 200€ per year. Unforseen Maintenance in the past five years: one tyre, one tube (around 250 iirc) and two brake cylinders (ca. 300). Flying around 250 hours per year on all three combined.
And you still haven’t explained, why your RV don’t need to change oil and filter, check the spark plugs, control rod tensions, etc.
LeSving wrote:
for a C-172 it will cost what?
LeSving wrote:
A C-172 is a complex design compared with an RV.
This discussion is leading nowhere. I and many of my friends will keep on spending much less than you claim we have to spend and rather go flying.
The Cessna 172 and the RV10 are essentially the same design and construction (metal/rivet). The Cessna being a certified tricycle-fixed-gear high wing 4-seater, the RV being an experimental/kit tricycle-fixed-gear low wing 4-seater. You can add a constant speed prop to either of them, and you can get either of them equipped with either steam or glass panels. Both are non-pressurized use either continental or lycoming engines and are roughly around 120 to 130ktas cruise.
