Owner Maintenance

[brien23]

One of the reasons I get about pilots that want a home made airplane over the Piper or Cessna is what they can do for maintenance. What you can do on your Piper or Cessna is a lot, the more you do the less it will cost you in maintenance. Just what can you do, their is a list of things you as a pilot owner can do and remember under the supervision of a A&P what you can do is only limited to what you are capable of. Find a A&P/IA that will work with you and your maintenance cost depending on just how handy you are will be only a fraction of what a FBO charges.

 

[MIFlyer]

right on Brien. PS, i like the apache in your photo

 

[Ted]

That's been part of why an experimental has never made sense for me personally. There really is a lot you can do just under "preventative maintenance" and if you have an A&P who you can work with, there's even more.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

All very true. But you're still limited to certified parts and their certified price and you're still at the mercy of an A&P. Experimental allows you to use non-certified parts which are often much cheaper. And you don't have to pay an A&P ever if you don't want to. Even with turning wrenches as much as possible, certified can't hold a candle to the cost of maintaining and experimental you built yourself.

 

[Ted]

All very true. But you're still limited to certified parts and their certified price and you're still at the mercy of an A&P. Experimental allows you to use non-certified parts which are often much cheaper. And you don't have to pay an A&P ever if you don't want to. Even with turning wrenches as much as possible, certified can't hold a candle to the cost of maintaining and experimental you built yourself.

True to a point, but I think you'd be surprised how much is fabricated as allowed by the ACs, and how inexpensive used parts can often be from the scrap yard. Reality is most of my bills have been labor, not parts.

When I look at what people spend who are flying airplanes actually equivalent in terms of complexity to most E-ABs (which would really be something from a 172 and smaller, since most E-ABs are 2 seat) if they do owner-assisted, the bills are usually pretty small, enough where the higher cost of entry of the E-AB offsets it significantly. Now, the aircraft aren't equivalent in terms of performance since the E-ABs are generally much slicker, and so to get equivalent speed you'd have to go to something more complex (and thus more expensive to maintain) in the certified world.

On the positive for the certified world, I don't have time to do all the maintenance on the aircraft I'm in charge of. So having established procedures and parts makes things easier on the whole for me to write a check to someone else. Doesn't mean I don't get my hands dirty somewhat (I did a lot on the 414), but I don't have time to do it all. The Cub will be different.

Bottom line as I see it, buy the plane you want that does what you want it. Strictly buying something because it is or is not E-AB I think is kinda silly.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

When I look at what people spend who are flying airplanes actually equivalent in terms of complexity to most E-ABs (which would really be something from a 172 and smaller, since most E-ABs are 2 seat) if they do owner-assisted, the bills are usually pretty small, enough where the higher cost of entry of the E-AB offsets it significantly. Now, the aircraft aren't equivalent in terms of performance since the E-ABs are generally much slicker, and so to get equivalent speed you'd have to go to something more complex (and thus more expensive to maintain) in the certified world.

The initial hit is greater for sure...I figure I've got about $80K into mine...but then you're starting off with a brand-new airframe and (in my case) a brand-new IO-320 that, with any luck, won't require huge Mx bills for quite some time. I do love having the Repairman Certificate and performing my own annual inspections, from both the cost perspective and knowing every rivet and bolt on the aircraft. Pay up front or pay later, these flying machines are pricey...but worth every penny!

 

[Juliet Hotel]

True to a point, but I think you'd be surprised how much is fabricated as allowed by the ACs, and how inexpensive used parts can often be from the scrap yard. Reality is most of my bills have been labor, not parts.

The last flying job I had before exiting the industry, any work day I wasn't flying I was in the shop turning wrenches under the supervision of the A&P's. I fabricated and installed lots of parts in my time there so no, I wouldn't be as surprised as you think. The thing is, I don't think anyone is going to fabricate an alternator or a starter. When your oil cooler cracks or the ASI takes a dump, you're probably not going to fabricate a new one and if its a 172, you're going to need certified replacement parts. You can find non-certified ASI's for a couple hundred bucks. Certified are more than double that.

When I look at what people spend who are flying airplanes actually equivalent in terms of complexity to most E-ABs (which would really be something from a 172 and smaller, since most E-ABs are 2 seat) if they do owner-assisted, the bills are usually pretty small, enough where the higher cost of entry of the E-AB offsets it significantly. Now, the aircraft aren't equivalent in terms of performance since the E-ABs are generally much slicker, and so to get equivalent speed you'd have to go to something more complex (and thus more expensive to maintain) in the certified world.

You hit the nail on the heat there. You can probably own a 40 year old 172 for about what it would cost you to own a E-AB assuming you do as much work yourself as possible. But then you get a 40 your old 172 with its 40 year old panel and its 60 year old performance. For very similar money, you can fly a lot newer and a lot nicer and a lot faster on the E-AB side.

 

[Bill Watson]

That's been part of why an experimental has never made sense for me personally. There really is a lot you can do just under "preventative maintenance" and if you have an A&P who you can work with, there's even more.

The big difference for me was education, training and the learning curve. Though I’m reasonably mechanically inclined, I had little inclination to do preventative work or supervised work on my Maule. I tried to do some but lacked the proper tools and skills to do much. My only ‘owner assisted’ annual cost me an arm, a leg and a ‘wink’ from the shop which I interpreted as ‘you just slow us down’. Obviously the right A&P or shop would help here.

I owned and did some work on some previously owned gliders where I was a bit more comfortable with composites and the lack of an engine, but there were still limits.

Building my RV-10 over 5 years was the immersive education I needed. I took some intensive aluminum fabrication training from an 18yo at a week-long ‘tail building’ class. I did a weekend of applied composite work over another weekend. Did the Lycoming Engine School as well. When it came time to do the final assembly at another airport with a working A&P in the same hangar, I learned a bit by helping him on his work but barely let him touch my aircraft... I had become a reasonably confident wrench and had become comfortable learning on the fly so to speak.

Still learning but now quite comfortable being the sole maintainer on my craft.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ravioli]

I didn't build mine, so therefore do not have the repairman certificate.

Technically I can do anything/everything I want and only need 1 signature per year. That from any A&P, not even an IA.

However, as I've said many times before, I am COMPLETELY mechanically inept. I hire out all of the work on my plane.

So why am I flying someone's garage project?
She's fast
She's sexy
She can do aerobatics (when I get the training)

Oh, and even though I pay an A&P, I pay him LESS because of the simplicity of the systems and the cost of parts.

I guess I've only illustrated there is a plane for everyone, and what's on the Airworthiness Certificate shouldn't automagically rule one in or out.

 

[brien23]

The last flying job I had before exiting the industry, any work day I wasn't flying I was in the shop turning wrenches under the supervision of the A&P's. I fabricated and installed lots of parts in my time there so no, I wouldn't be as surprised as you think. The thing is, I don't think anyone is going to fabricate an alternator or a starter. When your oil cooler cracks or the ASI takes a dump, you're probably not going to fabricate a new one and if its a 172, you're going to need certified replacement parts. You can find non-certified ASI's for a couple hundred bucks. Certified are more than double that.



You hit the nail on the heat there. You can probably own a 40 year old 172 for about what it would cost you to own a E-AB assuming you do as much work yourself as possible. But then you get a 40 your old 172 with its 40 year old panel and its 60 year old performance. For very similar money, you can fly a lot newer and a lot nicer and a lot faster on the E-AB side.

Seems like every time someone compares E-AB to a 40 year old 172 they use a 10,000 hr run out junk 172 price to compare it to some new E-AB 4 place. A well maintained 40 year old 172 should give you reliable service for many years with low cost, just how many certified parts do you think your going to need. As far as similar money, a 4 place E-AB to build over a 40 year old 172 not sure that the E-AB would be more than twice to build than the 40 year old 172. If you want a E-AB that will out preform a 172 and have the time to build it then yes it is your choice. To say that the cost is a reason to go E-AB is a very poor reason to go that route as their are many production aircraft that can be maintained and at the end of the year cost is about the same.

 

[Ravioli]

@brien23 -- a more fair comparison would be a Cirrus to an RV-10.

The planes are similar, 4 place, two door, usually air conditioned, similar speeds and load, castering nose wheel. Good examples of each will go $200k.

Wanna guess cost of ownership between those?

 

[Bill Watson]

Comparing a well maintained 172 of any vintage with a Kitfox is misleading as well.

Overtaking a good looking 172 on V3 last week, with a 40 knot advantage is a comparison I could relate to. Yes I have a much bigger engine and probably spent more money but not sure I was burning more gas. I wonder....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Seems like every time someone compares E-AB to a 40 year old 172 they use a 10,000 hr run out junk 172 price to compare it to some new E-AB 4 place. A well maintained 40 year old 172 should give you reliable service for many years with low cost, just how many certified parts do you think your going to need.

I didn't say it would be unreliable, I said it would be 40 years old. And it will look 40 years old. Maybe its just vanity but if I'm paying as much as a house for a toy, I'd rather it look a little more modern than this:

...or look older, that would work for me as well oddly enough. A late 50s C170 panel or a Bonanza of the same vintage has a certain class to the interior. But that flimsy plastic Cessna used in the 70's is garbage IMO.

Yep, you can buy a 172 and redo the panel and interior. Or you can take your money and build a nice bon fire with it which will be about the same in terms of return on investment. And yeah I know, planes aren't really investments. But sinking $20k into the interior turns a $40k airplane into a $45k airplane at best and though I know people do it, it never seemed to make much sense to me. Shrug.

 

[FastEddieB]

My general impression is that many owners go far beyond what's allowed by FAR's as Preventive Maintenance. Without an A&P's blessing.

And largely to no ill effect. Yet always with at least the possibility of an enforcement action were something to go wrong, or with really bad luck.

No passing of judgment implied - merely an observation.

 

[Bell206]

After 30 years of providing owner-assisted mx I've been in a number of these types of conversations. But when trying to compare E/AB to TC'd or now LSA aircraft, it's not an equal comparison. Each has their own pros and cons. Instead I've found it's more a comparison of their owners, whom have their own pros and cons. For example, there was an ardent E/AB supporter at one airport that strongly defended the practicality of E/AB over TC'd aircraft. No way would he pay $55/hr to change oil in his plane or buy $100 alternator belts. But his point usually dulled when he pulled up in his Porsche, that he paid someone $120/hr to change the oil and $200 to wax it. So it all depends on the owner in my view.

As to the costs of ownership, here again it's dependent on the owner. Regardless of type aircraft some owners take care of the aircraft and some don't. For example, look at the posts on POA about batteries. You'll read on how brand X is junk or brand Z only lasts 3 years. Yet when advice is given to check for parasitic drains or look at the wires the knee jerk reply is "that is what a battery minder is for." While E/AB are "cheaper" in one respect they are limited in other respects that can't compare to a TC'd aircraft. So it boils down to how the owner values the difference between mx costs vs operational benefits.

But when it comes to TC'd aircraft I must agree with Brien23. There are quite a few options available to an owner to maintain their aircraft. However, a number of people do not know the full extent of how much an owner can do on their aircraft. Even when it comes to the parts. For example, to use the cracked oil cooler mentioned above, replacement with a "certified" cooler is only one option. Having the original repaired/re-cored or replaced with a used one can substantially reduce the cost of a "certified" cooler. So once again it all depends on how the owner chooses to interact.

On finding an AP/IA to work with you, in this day and age sometimes you need to search them out and go to them. If I showed you the margins on an independent A&P shop, the majority of you here would never enter the field. Yet at the same time will declare on POA that most mechanics over-charge or are trying to buy a new boat. It is what it is. Unfortunately some mechanics are good and some not so good. No different than owners.

So in my experience, when it comes to maintaining/operating an aircraft it all depends on how the owner values his aircraft. Sort of like a quick flight out to Oak Harbor will probably give you more bang for buck than the cost of the gas to get there.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Agreed....some are all thumbs and a credit card is best for those.

 

[tawood]

On a somewhat regular basis I change my own oil/filter, change tires/brake pads, touch up paint, change ELT batteries, replace bulbs, and clean/gap/rotate my sparkplugs. I know there is quite a bit more that I can do, but I either don't fully know how (so I lack confidence), or just don't want/need to do it.
One thing I've always wished I could do but can't, legally, would be dressing a prop...I think if the rule was something like "prop chips less than 1/8" deep" or something...I'm sure an A&P could chime in now about how it is harder to do right than it seems, etc.

 

[Grum.Man]

3 Tires and tubes for the Grumman.... 700.00

3 tires and tubes for the venture.... 90.00

Regardless of which I have always done my own work. If something needed signing off by an A&P there were plenty around the field that would take a look and approve for a good bbq lunch.

 

[murphey]

Agreed....some are all thumbs and a credit card is best for those.

Me! I do software, not hardware. I'll change the oil, the batteries, fill the gas tank and tires. But I'm incompetent with tools and really don't have any wish to change. I don't enjoy futzing around with computer hardware nor airplane hardware. Never had any interest in dorking around with cars, either, altho my Dad loved it. I am very good at what I do, and know how incompetent I am with most things.

 

[Morgan3820]

All very true. But you're still limited to certified parts and their certified price and you're still at the mercy of an A&P. Experimental allows you to use non-certified parts which are often much cheaper. And you don't have to pay an A&P ever if you don't want to. Even with turning wrenches as much as possible, certified can't hold a candle to the cost of maintaining and experimental you built yourself.

The whole issue for me with experimental is, excepting the RV10 and Bearhawk, utility. In my Arrow I can happily haul 3 people, luggage and the dog in a crate. Doesn't matter how cheap or how fast or glass panel displays or anything else if you can't carry what you need to carry. I need to haul more than 2 and a small duffle bag.

 

[Morgan3820]

If I could afford an RV 10, I would probably buy a Bonanza.

 

[bradg33]

My general impression is that many owners go far beyond what's allowed by FAR's as Preventive Maintenance. Without an A&P's blessing.

And largely to no ill effect. Yet always with at least the possibility of an enforcement action were something to go wrong, or with really bad luck.

No passing of judgment implied - merely an observation.

Owners aren't the ones going out of bounds, it's those damned hangar ferries that work under the cover of dark.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

The whole issue for me with experimental is, excepting the RV10 and Bearhawk, utility. In my Arrow I can happily haul 3 people, luggage and the dog in a crate. Doesn't matter how cheap or how fast or glass panel displays or anything else if you can't carry what you need to carry. I need to haul more than 2 and a small duffle bag.

An actual need for 4 seats under $100k is probably one of the few valid reasons to go certified IMO. Note that I said actual need. As we all know, lots of people who buy 4-place planes find the vast majority of their flights end up being solo, most of the rest are with one other person and maybe twice they've had someone in the back seat. But yeah, if you're one the rare ones that is actually going to travel regularly with people in the back seat, there really aren't any options on the E-AB side under $100k. Getting it done under $200k is possible but still doesn't give many options. By that point like you said, you're in Cirrus or Bonanza territory. Of course I still think you get more/better for your money with the RV10 but yeah, t'aint cheap.

 

[Raymo]

Comparing an old Bo to an RV-10 isn't really fair either. Comparing a Cirrus to an RV-10 is quite valid and the cost of ownership for the -10 would be a fraction of the Cirrus.

I'd love to have an RV-10 but, as mentioned above, rarely have a need for more than 2 seats - and I can carry up to 100 lbs of baggage; a lot more than a small duffel bag - and do so at 160 KTAS on 8 GPH. I don't know of anything in the certified world that compares to my RV-7A.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

ya but....it's isn't the seats....it's the extra performance with just one or two on board. Climb performance is very different.

 

[Morgan3820]

Comparing an old Bo to an RV-10 isn't really fair either. Comparing a Cirrus to an RV-10 is quite valid and the cost of ownership for the -10 would be a fraction of the Cirrus.

I'd love to have an RV-10 but, as mentioned above, rarely have a need for more than 2 seats - and I can carry up to 100 lbs of baggage; a lot more than a small duffel bag - and do so at 160 KTAS on 8 GPH. I don't know of anything in the certified world that compares to my RV-7A.

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

 

[Juliet Hotel]

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

At the SPCA?

 

[Morgan3820]

Speed, efficiency don't mean a thing if you can't bring your best buddy with you. Different strokes.
Glad you are happy with your plane.

 

[weirdjim]

3 Tires and tubes for the Grumman.... 700.00

You must not know about Desser retreads.

Jim

 

[Ravioli]

The whole issue for me with experimental is, excepting the RV10 and Bearhawk, utility. In my Arrow I can happily haul 3 people, luggage and the dog in a crate. Doesn't matter how cheap or how fast or glass panel displays or anything else if you can't carry what you need to carry. I need to haul more than 2 and a small duffle bag.

Now I get it... you're a speedy heavy hauler in... wait for it people... an Arrow.

Cough, hack, let me catch my breath...

[Note: I do like Arrows. Turbo III time was fun. What that means to the relative difference in maintenance I cannot discern]

 

[Dana]

I'm one of those guys who can generally fix anything, or make a replacement from scratch if it can't be fixed, so for me experimentals are the only logical choice. Not to mention the general lack of affordable standard category planes in the flavors I like to fly...

 

[Bill Watson]

If I could afford an RV 10, I would probably buy a Bonanza.

Perhaps. In my case as a retiree, I just can’t afford Bo’ maintenance compared to DIY. And my RV10 probably has more advanced electrons than the Bo’. But the Bo’ can have anti-ice and a turbo, so there’s that.

Different strokes


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Morgan3820]

Different strokes

 

[Ted]

I guess I've only illustrated there is a plane for everyone, and what's on the Airworthiness Certificate shouldn't automagically rule one in or out.

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.

 

[MIFlyer]

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.

I tend to agree that there aren't many 1:1 comparisons. I do think the Sportsman compares to a 182 and I'd probably buy one before a newer 182 if I was in that market http://glasairaviation.com/sportsman-performance-spec / $200K for the two weeks to taxi model

 

[Ted]

I tend to agree that there aren't many 1:1 comparisons. I do think the Sportsman compares to a 182 and I'd probably buy one before a newer 182 if I was in that market http://glasairaviation.com/sportsman-performance-spec / $200K for the two weeks to taxi model

To an extent I'd agree, but the Sportsman has less power, and is a tailwheel. The tailwheel by itself I think makes a pretty significant difference in target demographic, although I agree that useful load and performance looks similar on paper. I'd also wonder what the cabin dimensions are like to compare the two.

 

[MIFlyer]

To an extent I'd agree, but the Sportsman has less power, and is a tailwheel. The tailwheel by itself I think makes a pretty significant difference in target demographic, although I agree that useful load and performance looks similar on paper. I'd also wonder what the cabin dimensions are like to compare the two.

not to nit, but you can build as float, tailwheel or tricycle and switch between them post build in a few hours.
They useful is a bit lower, but the speed is a lot faster, so it's not a 1:1 comparison.
They offer the IO 360, IO 390 and the CD155 as engine options.

 

[Ted]

not to nit, but you can build as float, tailwheel or tricycle and switch between them post build in a few hours.
They useful is a bit lower, but the speed is a lot faster, so it's not a 1:1 comparison.
They offer the IO 360, IO 390 and the CD155 as engine options.

Ahh, didn't realize the float/tail/nose switchability. Interesting.

Either way, I'd say it's not entirely a 1:1 still. And I suspect if you sat in the two of them, it would seem even less so.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

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.

I think its still valid to make a comparison regardless of the 4-seats. At least in some cases. Lets say my mission is 800 mile trips for myself and my wife. I don't need 4 seats for that but if I'm considering a certified plane, what are my choices that are 2-seat? A 152? An AA1? A Cub? You can do 800 mile trips in those but that's not really what any of them are designed for.

So I'd be looking at 4 seat airplanes for my 2 seat mission. If that's the case, then its absolutely valid to compare the 2-seat experimental to 4-seat certified.

 

[Ted]

I think its still valid to make a comparison regardless of the 4-seats. At least in some cases. Lets say my mission is 800 mile trips for myself and my wife. I don't need 4 seats for that but if I'm considering a certified plane, what are my choices that are 2-seat? A 152? An AA1? A Cub? You can do 800 mile trips in those but that's not really what any of them are designed for.

So I'd be looking at 4 seat airplanes for my 2 seat mission. If that's the case, then its absolutely valid to compare the 2-seat experimental to 4-seat certified.

I get what you're saying, basically the seat issue is reversed when you look at certified. So for you, it might be valid to say "I could buy a Comanche 250 or an RV-whatever." In your pros and cons list, the fact that the Comanche 250 has 4 seats and more space would be listed as a pro, but it would have a very low weight since you don't care as your mission only requires a 2-seater. Obviously the 4-seater will have things that make it more expensive to operate (an RV-10 will cost more to own than a -9 on average, right?). If nothing else, slower on the same (or more) fuel burn.

The comparison reminds me of a Car & Driver Comparison from around 2000, where they compared a BMW 540i, a Mercedes E-something-or-another (430 or 500, I think), and a Cadillac STS. At least that's what I think the lineup was, point is two mid-size rear wheel drive cars and a full size Cadillac with front wheel drive. The Cadillac "fit in" because it was about the same price new as the other two, but it really wasn't much of a comparison. Cadillac won on comfort and interior space (well duh) but lost on all performance characteristics (well also duh). Reality is most people who wanted the Cadillac type of car wouldn't consider the others and vice versa.

That's why I say figure the planes that fit the mission first, then go from there. Ultimately any single-pilot plane can fulfill the mission of flying one person around, and then you go from there.