Phil,
You should speak to Rob at Aerotech, Coventry.
He has been looking after my aircraft for the past 7 years, following similar problems you describe.
In my opinion he is one of the 2 engineers in the U.K. that you can trust.
If you are in PPL/IR have a word with the previous chairman, he will give you the same opinion.
You do need a suitable facility for maintaining it, otherwise you will get utterly fleeced (i.e. much more than many get already )
Yes, this is very true. My first year was with a UK maintenance company who did the initial pre-buy inspection (went ok) so then at my request extended this to do the full Event I and Event II inspections. Five months later it emerges from their workshop with a new ARC, a hydraulic leak from an untightened pipe and a new door seal installed incorrectly so the aircraft wouldn’t pressurise. Final straw emerged 12 months later when they asked for 8000 Euros to subscribe to the Piper service documentation. Apparently they had “borrowed” a subscription to have the Event I/II done previously.
I abandoned the UK organisation at that point and re-appointed Piper Germany as CAMO and maintenance company. They are not cheap based on hourly labour rate but highly efficient and organised so overall, I am very happy with them indeed. The aircraft is ready exactly when they say it will be.
The only downside is the 1h50 journey to Kassel in the Meridian compared to the 10h+ journey back home using a variety of planes, trains and automobiles.
Many Meridian operators elected to have the reduced MTOW AFM. With German registered Meridians, 1999kg machines are easy to recognise as they have D-Exxx registrations. Those not electing to use the operational reduction are D-Fxxx
Rwy20 wrote:
Why does the table state “0 £” for airways fees for the Meridian if it’s over 2 tones?
The EASA PA46-500TP Type Certificate data sheet has the following note:
“For operational reasons AFM/POH with a reduced MTOW of 1999 kg (4406 lb) are available. No physical changes on the aircraft are necessary for this MTOW reduction”
Many Meridian operators elected to have the reduced MTOW AFM. With German registered Meridians, 1999kg machines are easy to recognise as they have D-Exxx registrations. Those not electing to use the operational reduction are D-Fxxx
WOW …. don’t show them figures to my wife, I have always told her that flying is a cheapish hobby …. compared to some things I suppose it is.
I think that Phil’s figures are mostly about right but I can’t see that I have spent anything like that, maybe one shouldn’t add it up?
Just one addition is Trend Monitoring at about $1000 every year.
Once I get the Jetprop back off annual I will show the figures it cost to fly the 170+ hours since the last one, I sure hope it brings the hourly rate down considerably.
Why does the table state “0 £” for airways fees for the Meridian if it’s over 2 tones?
Yes, the calculations in the tables can only include items of cost that are known and predicted. I tried to be as fair as I could drafting them. But of course the counter-argument against the very favourable cost/nm is the potential cost of unknown expenditure. Then again as Jason says, these events tend to be less likely in a turbine.
Overall, I think the big piston twin is the bargain. Having relatively small capital tied up in an aircraft is quite attractive. The C340A was a great machine but it’s basic autopilot made flying it single pilot quite hard work. It was effectively straight and level only so anything other than cruise was hand-flown.
Snoopy wrote:
Cost per NM is my favourite indicator. Add seat unit costs to that equation and we should all get a little airbus ;).
Seriously, SETs are great. The only thing I could think of speaking against the SET is if some maintenance nightmare evolves with it. Think big $$$!
The same thing with a SR22 will be chump change compared to the financial reserves needed to keep the SET in the air.
I spent less maintaining my Meridian than I did with the piston Mirage. Airframe costs same, engine and enviro maint costs lower. Less vibration means that everything lasts longer. Turbine engines just work. You do have an expensive hot section and overhaul at some point in their future.
Cost per NM is my favourite indicator. Add seat unit costs to that equation and we should all get a little airbus ;).
Seriously, SETs are great. The only thing I could think of speaking against the SET is if some maintenance nightmare evolves with it. Think big $$$!
The same thing with a SR22 will be chump change compared to the financial reserves needed to keep the SET in the air.
).