Owner Maintenance

[Juliet Hotel]

That's more or less exactly what I'm saying. How many 172 owners use the back seat for anything other than a place to put their flight bag on more than 2% of their flights? Not many I suspect. I think the same can be said for owners of quite a few certified light singles.

 

[Bill Watson]

It is interesting how the 2 seat RVs kind of own the segment for 1+1 transportation at good speed in a fun mount.

My sense of the 172 beyond the training role is of a 2+2 casual travel machine.

A 1+1 to me is ‘usually pilot-only with all the stuff he/she may want to carry’. Pure single person transportation and occasional whoopee machine for pilot and friend.

A 2+2 is ‘usually 2 people with enough stuff to make an occasional vacation of it’.

Neither is optimal, both highly compromised (1+1 is for a single, a status that can suddenly change, 2+2 172s types are slow for frequent/extensive travel).

Options are surprisingly limited and the barriers to getting exactly what you want can be high.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[JAWS]

I work on certifieds almost every day and I own one as well. They have rules and limitations as to who can do things and what has to be installed. Cost of doing business in that market.

I have Bearhawk plans waiting for when I retire. That will be a nice change of pace.

 

[Skyrys62]

They useful is a bit lower, but the speed is a lot faster, so it's not a 1:1 comparison.

Definitely have to put the IO-390 in to get any speed advantage over the 182. Which looks to be maybe 10-15 knots book numbers.
Most of the threads I've come across have owners reporting they get below book numbers on the 2+2's though.
Here's a video comparing the 2 options. It's older and may not still apply though.

I think the real pros are as mentioned, it's a newer plane, better fuel burn, and some savings on maint/avionics being experimental (for now, see: https://generalaviationnews.com/2017/05/03/glasair-sportsman-to-be-certified/)

Plus, I'd guess that 4cyl lycoming is cheaper to maintain. Has the IO-390 been out long enough to know?
Definitely cheaper to rebuild.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

A 2+2 is ‘usually 2 people with enough stuff to make an occasional vacation of it’.

How much stuff do you need for a vacation? My wife and I take one 50lb bag and a backpack carry-on when we go somewhere for a week and that's more than enough capacity for everything we need. Its a vacation, leave the tablesaw at home.

 

[Bill Watson]

How much stuff do you need for a vacation? My wife and I take one 50lb bag and a backpack carry-on when we go somewhere for a week and that's more than enough capacity for everything we need. Its a vacation, leave the tablesaw at home.

In airline terms, that’s what is cost effective to take.

No problem doing that plus some in the C172. The casual part relates to speed.

In terms of traveling by personal aircraft, what one typically stuffs into one’s SUV is the dream.
Q: How much can I stuff into my car?
A: As much as I have space for.

Here’s the RV-10 trip my wife and I did in October:
- Durham NC to Key West FL for 5 day Halloween week and wedding anniversary celebrations. Added fuel stop in Ft Meyers for cheap fuel.
- Key West to Marsh Harbour, Abaco Bahamas for 5 days of bonefishing and beachcombing
- Return home in Durham via Ft Pierce FL

Here’s what we packed:
- (2) carry-ons and (1) garment bag
- (1) large storage bin with costumes, (1) hat box
- (1) case of Prosecco, 1/2 case of liquor, 1/2 case soft drink
- (1) large mesh bag with skin diving equipment for 2, fly fishing rods, reels and equipment, (3) pairs of wading shoes, (2) car top rod holders
- (2-3) bags of misc food, fruit, coffee grinder and beans
- (1) small cooler for in flight use, (1) small foam box with frozen steaks
- several other small bags with misc clothing, heels, boots, sandals and some ‘just in case’ stuff, plus purse, computer bag, misc electronics
- (we left an inflatable (2) person kayak & paddles behind but brought the (4) person emergency raft and survival stuff)

We never considered carrying less than full fuel (or 60 gals) and we re-stocked some consumables in FL.

We did the FL-only trip last year with 4 aboard. We told the the other couple to bring whatever they’d bring on an airliner which allowed us to pack all of our other extra stuff.

It turns out that the ‘10 is volume limited given normal cargo density and 2-4 standard weight people. We just fill it up and go. Almost impossible to load outside of CG. Cruise at 155 to 163 TAS @ 10 - 11.2 GPH @ 6 to 10k.

Somehow we managed to get a net tailwind on all 3 legs including this last one - can’t buy that kind of luck.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Juliet Hotel]

In terms of traveling by personal aircraft, what one typically stuffs into one’s SUV is the dream.
Q: How much can I stuff into my car?
A: As much as I have space for.

Even when we go by car, we don't take much more than one bag and a backpack. Maybe a 2nd backpack or an extra camera bag but not much more. Guess we're weird that way. Shrug.

 

[unsafervguy]

New battery last week for the Rv. 80 bucks at batteries plus. Concord rg25 at spruce, 282 bucks. New alternator auto zone 85 bucks lifetime warranty, new plane power faa-Pma at spruce, 509. Nuff said ...............

 

[Raymo]

Ok. But where does the Dog sit when you bring the Wife?

The dog can sit in the back, though she hasn't had to yet; the wife doesn't like to fly.

 

[tawood]

In airline terms, that’s what is cost effective to take.

No problem doing that plus some in the C172. The casual part relates to speed.

In terms of traveling by personal aircraft, what one typically stuffs into one’s SUV is the dream.
Q: How much can I stuff into my car?
A: As much as I have space for.

Here’s the RV-10 trip my wife and I did in October:
- Durham NC to Key West FL for 5 day Halloween week and wedding anniversary celebrations. Added fuel stop in Ft Meyers for cheap fuel.
- Key West to Marsh Harbour, Abaco Bahamas for 5 days of bonefishing and beachcombing
- Return home in Durham via Ft Pierce FL

Here’s what we packed:
- (2) carry-ons and (1) garment bag
- (1) large storage bin with costumes, (1) hat box
- (1) case of Prosecco, 1/2 case of liquor, 1/2 case soft drink
- (1) large mesh bag with skin diving equipment for 2, fly fishing rods, reels and equipment, (3) pairs of wading shoes, (2) car top rod holders
- (2-3) bags of misc food, fruit, coffee grinder and beans
- (1) small cooler for in flight use, (1) small foam box with frozen steaks
- several other small bags with misc clothing, heels, boots, sandals and some ‘just in case’ stuff, plus purse, computer bag, misc electronics
- (we left an inflatable (2) person kayak & paddles behind but brought the (4) person emergency raft and survival stuff)

We never considered carrying less than full fuel (or 60 gals) and we re-stocked some consumables in FL.

We did the FL-only trip last year with 4 aboard. We told the the other couple to bring whatever they’d bring on an airliner which allowed us to pack all of our other extra stuff.

It turns out that the ‘10 is volume limited given normal cargo density and 2-4 standard weight people. We just fill it up and go. Almost impossible to load outside of CG. Cruise at 155 to 163 TAS @ 10 - 11.2 GPH @ 6 to 10k.

Somehow we managed to get a net tailwind on all 3 legs including this last one - can’t buy that kind of luck.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Jeez, talk about a head wind...you couldn't escape!

Edit: Oops, I was looking at it backwards...good tailwind!

 

[Ted]

Plus, I'd guess that 4cyl lycoming is cheaper to maintain. Has the IO-390 been out long enough to know?
Definitely cheaper to rebuild.

I would expect cost of ownership on a parallel valve 540 to be lower than on a 390 all around, including overhaul. Note that to my knowledge nobody makes aftermarket cylinders for the 390. Lack of competition = much higher cylinder prices. The parallel valve 540 is about as bulletproof of an engine as you can get. The 390 weighs a bit less but is more high strung.

 

[Grum.Man]

Exactly what I was getting at.

I tend to think that comparing E-AB to certified is hard anyway because there are so few times you can really do it. SR22 vs. RV-10 is the closest, but even then I have a hard time comparing the two given the fit and finish of the Cirrus vs. the RV. For your standard 2-seater RVs, there's no certified bird that compares. Similarly, I can't think of any experimental that actually compares to a 172 just because of the 4-seat.

We're thinking the Cub for the runway once it's built, but I'm also open to the idea of some E-AB that would do the job. Thing is we probably don't want to build an airplane, probably would rather buy one. That lends itself well to a Cub.

CH801 is pretty comparable to a 172. Gives up too much speed to a 182 though.

 

[Ted]

CH801 is pretty comparable to a 172. Gives up too much speed to a 182 though.

That's a good example. I've never sat in one but I saw N801BH when Ben was still alive, and I'd agree that in general size/speed/etc. it could be compared to a 172. Much better STOl performance though.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Ok. But where does the Dog sit when you bring the Wife?

Obviously, someone needs to find a Griffon Lionheart project...

 

[N3368K]

I do most my own work on my J-3 under supervision of an A&P/IA. I do most of my own work on my RV-4 and the same A&P/IA does the condition inspection. My last condition inspection on the RV-4 and the annual on the J-3 (currently ongoing) this year are running about the same amount. Both had some engine work done...RV starter, ring gear replacement, new master and starter relays, wiring, etc. J-3 needed a new cylinder, new seat slings and a small patch done to fabric. End of the day, both will cost me about $1500 each, including A&P/IA inspection/supervision/answering stupid questions.

Even when I owned my Swift, while it took me longer due to gear tests and more systems, cost was never significantly higher...though the example of the certified battery is a good one. $200 for a new Concorde (last time I had to buy one) vs my RV-4 battery for $60 is telling. Funny, when I sold the Swift, it stayed local and the same A&P/IA called me to come help with the gear swing test.

 

[Dan Thomas]

You Americans need to lobby the FAA for an Owner-Maintenance category like we have in Canada. It was created around 16 years ago to allow the owners of older, simpler airplanes to keep them flying by using non-certified parts and by doing all the maintenance, including the annual inspections, themselves. At the time it was under consideration there was a lot of concern over the potential for accidents due to failures, but that hasn't been the case yet. Perhaps if some of these aircraft are mismanaged by their owners long enough it will start.
One drawback to this category is the prohibition against flying into the US, since you don't have an equivalent category there. Homebuilts can go back and forth because of equivalency. Another drawback is a loss in resale value, but you have to weigh that loss against the prices you will pay for the time you anticipate owning the airplane in certified form. It's easy to spend more than the whole airplane is worth over ten or 15 years. And there is still a market for OM airplanes, selling to people who want that freedom. The loss isn't that great, unless the owner cheaps out or gets lazy and lets the thing suffer deterioration.
There's a conundrum here. You can own an old 172 and have to buy certified parts ($$) and pay a mechanic ($$) to install them and conduct annual inspections. Or you can re-register it and do it all yourself and buy non-certified stuff and use it. If you did that without re-registering it OM you're way outside the law, but as an OM it's fine. Same airplane, same uncertified parts, labor and signatures, flies over the same town carrying the same people, and that piece of paper makes it all OK. The law is nuts sometimes.

Here's what the law looks like:

507.03 Issue of Special Certificates of Airworthiness

1. (1) A special certificate of airworthiness (Special C of A) is issued for an aircraft that does not meet all the requirements for a certificate of airworthiness, in any one of the following classifications:
   1. (a) Provisional;
      
      
   2. (b) Restricted;
      
      
   3. (c) Amateur-built;
      
      
   4. (d) Limited; and
      
      
   5. (e) Owner-maintenance.
      (amended 2002/03/01)

There's more in this Chapter: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-507s-1804.htm#507s_03

Now, there's a list of eligible airplanes. Generally, they're no more than four seats, fixed gear, fixed-pitch prop. There are a few that are outside those limits; they were approved early on before the list became formalized. The list, here: https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-a507sh-1837.htm

The list starts some distance down that page. I don't know why.

 

[N3368K]

You Americans need to lobby the FAA for an Owner-Maintenance category like we have in Canada.

It has been tried as "Primary Category" and went nowhere.

Like Third Class Medical Reform, it would have to get Congress behind it to force the FAA to take action by passing legislation. They aren't likely to willingly change it.

 

[Skyrys62]

The parallel valve 540 is about as bulletproof of an engine as you can get.

That is good to hear about the 540.
Is there a big difference in the Lyc 540 vs continental 470 regarding reliability?
Research seems to point to the cylinders as a somewhat frequent thing for the Conti 6 cyls.

You Americans need to lobby the FAA for an Owner-Maintenance category

And yes, that would be awesome

 

[Ted]

That is good to hear about the 540.
Is there a big difference in the Lyc 540 vs continental 470 regarding reliability?
Research seems to point to the cylinders as a somewhat frequent thing for the Conti 6 cyls.

That's more or less a Ford/Chevy debate. Both sides have pros and cons.

The main problem areas on Continentals from what I've seen are:

- Starter adapters
- Cylinders (compression and burned valves)
- Gear driven alternators
- Lifters

Unless a starter adapter or a gear driven alternator goes out in a manner that throws chunks into the bottom end, the rest are usually easier to deal with. Bottoms ends are pretty durable.

I've heard some reports of lifter and bearing issues with certain Lycoming engines, but I've never seen them personally. People also have reported cam issues but again, I have never personally come across them. The issue is that either of those require splitting the case rather than a 470 where lifters can be done externally. For the most part 540s just run. Personally I would prefer a parallel valve 540 over a 470. I would also stick to factory Lycoming cylinders as those do hold up better than aftermarket.

 

[Dana]

It has been tried as "Primary Category" and went nowhere.

I think, like the Recreational Pilot certificate, there wasn't enough increased freedom under Primary category to make it worth the disadvantages. Not like Canada's owner maintenance at all, which as I understand it makes it pretty much like an experimental.

 

[Skyrys62]

Good info, thanks Ted..
I have read through a couple of the older threads debating those two engines, as well as some other sites. Agree with the ford/chevy statement. However, there is some weight toward Lycoming overall.
One person said if they could put Continental bottom ends under Lycoming top ends it would be the best engine ever.

I would also stick to factory Lycoming cylinders as those do hold up better than aftermarket.

That may somewhat nullify the IO-390 cost concerns then (no aftermarket cylinders).

My preference to buy would be a 182 with the lycoming, rather than the 470, just for TBO if nothing else.
Can't afford the restart models just yet.

hmm, where did I put that GoFundMe link...

 

[N3368K]

It was supposed to be part of the Part 23 re-write, but it was completely omitted. The proposal under than was less stringent than the original proposal.

 

[Ted]

One person said if they could put Continental bottom ends under Lycoming top ends it would be the best engine ever.

I've said similar, although not said that directly. I'd like a Continental bottom end with an "automotive style starter" (what Lycoming has), belt driven alternator (again, like Lycoming), and Lycoming cylinders.

That may somewhat nullify the IO-390 cost concerns then (no aftermarket cylinders).

Factory Lycoming parallel valve cylinders are significantly cheaper than angle valve, especially 390 cylinders. Like a $1,000-$1,500 price difference per cylinder. Granted you're only buying 4 instead of 6, but you're still spending more with the 390 unless the prices have come down quite a bit.

My preference to buy would be a 182 with the lycoming, rather than the 470, just for TBO if nothing else.
Can't afford the restart models just yet.

I wouldn't worry much about the TBO. Under Part 91 it doesn't matter, and in my opinion realistically both engines will tend to last about the same. I do tend to agree the parallel valve 540 Lycoming will last better than a 470 overall, but if it meant the difference between being able to buy a plane vs. not, I wouldn't put too much weight on it when looking at those engines. The engines that I tend to think deserve extra attention are anything geared, or otherwise unusual, like the TSIOL-550, TI(G)O-541, GTSIO-520 (not unusual, but geared), GO-300, etc. Doesn't mean not to buy them, but the engines should be more of a consideration in those cases.

 

[Bell206]

there wasn't enough increased freedom under Primary category to make it worth the disadvantages. Not like Canada's owner maintenance at all

You're confusing the current Primary Aircraft category with the failed category "Primary Non-commercial." It was actually based on the Canadian version. It provided the same path for TC'd aircraft to be maintained by owners similar to E/AB-LSA rules. It also provided a path to return an aircraft back to Normal category. I don't have a link to the old docs but did have this saved.

3.3.5.1 Primary Non-Commercial Category
Applicability
The owner of a fixed wing, non-turbine powered part 23 aircraft or part 23 glider, 20 years or older, may elect to redesignate their aircraft as a Primary Non- Commercial.
Privileges
1. Aircraft in this category can be maintained by the owner with a repairperson certificate, similar to currently established procedures for LSA aircraft repairpersons.
2. Replacement or alteration parts should be appropriate for aircraft use; however, such parts need not be PMA/TSO authorized.
3. Owners can alter their own aircraft without the requirement for FAA approved data; however, some alterations may require phase 1 flight testing similar to Experimental Amateur Built (EAB) requirements.
Limitations
1. Primary Non-Commercial Category Aircraft are required to observe the FAA Approved Aircraft Flight Manual Operational Limitations and/or required placard limitations established for the Standard Category.
2. Aircraft cannot be used to carry persons for hire, this includes aircraft rental, but allows an owner to receive flight instruction in their own aircraft.
3. Airworthiness Directives are only applicable as currently allowed for EAB.
4. Aircraft owners must maintain a list in the aircraft logbook of all applicable ADs and their compliance status. This list will be used to highlight the owners awareness of the ADs existence and document their choice of compliance. This list will also be used to facilitate the conversion of the aircraft back to normal category.
5. Aircraft owners must maintain a list in the aircraft logbook of all alterations performed that are not FAA approved and all non PMA/TSO parts installed. This list will be used to facilitate the aircraft conversion back to normal category.
6. Incomplete or fraudulent maintenance logbook entries result in the revocation of the aircraft standard airworthiness certificate.
Requirements
1. Before original conversion, the aircraft must have a current annual inspection all applicable ADs must be complied with at the current annual inspection.
2. Airplane owners must either add the prefix of NC to the aircraft registration number or affix a Non-Commercial placard readily visible to all passengers.
3. The aircraft must have a yearly condition inspection by an A&P mechanic certifying that the aircraft is in condition for safe operation.
4. Upon transfer of aircraft ownership, the Non-Commercial Airworthiness Certificate must be reissued in the new owner's name.

 

[Bill Watson]

Even when we go by car, we don't take much more than one bag and a backpack. Maybe a 2nd backpack or an extra camera bag but not much more. Guess we're weird that way. Shrug.

The style of decadent hedonism that we try to practice is not for everyone. Practice is required to maintain proficiency.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro