Parts Price

brien23

brien23

Pattern Altitude
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,501
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Display name:
Brien
The loss rate of old Cessna and Piper aircraft for accident or just scrap old planes are not being replaced by new planes at any rate close to that being lost. With every plane loss the parts seem to be worth more as those making the parts have a smaller market to sell them to. Sometimes its hard to explain why a aircraft FAA approved tailwheel tire cost $88 and a tube $40 each and the same tire and tube not FAA approved can be had on Amazon tire and tube for $30.
 
Last edited:
brien23 said:
Sometimes its hard to explain why a aircraft FAA approved tailwheel tire cost $88 and a tube $40 each and the same tire and tube not FAA approved can be had on Amazon 2 tires and 2 tubes for $30.
Click to expand...
Not really. Given there are alternate routes like AC 23-27 or the VARMA program to replace parts on those "old" aircraft, its harder to explain why owners, or in most cases their mechanics, do not want to pursue those alternate routes.;)
 
Bell206 said:
Not really. Given there are alternate routes like AC 23-27 or the VARMA program to replace parts on those "old" aircraft, its harder to explain why owners, or in most cases their mechanics, do not want to pursue those alternate routes.;)
Click to expand...
I only glanced at VARMA and AC 23-27 a while back, so I won't claim any competence in the matter, but they seemed to apply mostly to unobtanium parts for aircraft older and rarer than the average Cessna or Piper spam can.
Are you saying there is a legal path to take a 600x6 tire from Tractor Supply (if they have it) and mount it on a 172?
 
AV8R_87 said:
I only glanced at VARMA and AC 23-27 a while back, so I won't claim any competence in the matter, but they seemed to apply mostly to unobtanium parts for aircraft older and rarer than the average Cessna or Piper spam can.
Are you saying there is a legal path to take a 600x6 tire from Tractor Supply (if they have it) and mount it on a 172?
Click to expand...

(2-Pack) 2.80/2.50-4" Tire & Inner Tube, Amazon $30.​

 
My 67 182 I sold could of used new door hinges. Two doors four hinges. Cessna was $1250 per hinge X four equals $5000. used was not much less maybe $600 per hinge. McFarline was something like $850 per hinge. I believe Textron would just like to see all the legacy models grounded and scrapped.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Are you saying there is a legal path to take a 600x6 tire from Tractor Supply (if they have it) and mount it on a 172?
Click to expand...
Yes. And always has been a legal path via the Part 43 alteration or the separate COTS processes. Now whether that path is as economical as purchasing an existing "approved" part is subjective to the owner. AC 23-27 and VARMA are simply a relatively new option and apply only to select aircraft built/certified prior to 1980 and covers any applicable aircraft to include Cessnas and so on. However, with VARMA I have yet to see any formal guidance issued by the FAA.

To use the OPs tail wheel example, you could use 23-27 for the tube substitution but the tire may require a bit more research as it is part of the landing gear dynamics. But since there are a number of solid core tailwheel options out there I would pursue finding a TSC or Amazon solid option to simplfy the install "approval."
 
Does Textron or McFarlane actually stock door hinges for a '67 182? Even if they do they're not making many at a time. If you paid a machine shop to make four of those you'd be paying at least a few hundred apiece. Then add in required inspections, material quality certs, the costs of PMA certification, it's easy to see how McFarlane gets to $850. A bigger company like Textron with higher overhead might well have to charge more.

Now astronomical markups on commodity items just for an "approved" sticker, that's another matter entirely.

I too am very happy with my experimental. :)
 
Dana said:
Does Textron or McFarlane actually stock door hinges for a '67 182?
Click to expand...
McFarlane probably does. As I understand it, McFarlane makes a number of production parts for Cessna with the ability to sell some of those parts under their PMA. But those hinges could also be produced as Part 21 owner-produced parts as well. And depending on the resources of the owner it could be done for less than an OEM or PMA part cost. At least thats what I've seen with helicopter door hinges for both an alteration hinge and a OPP hinge.

bonefishpete said:
I believe Textron would just like to see all the legacy models grounded and scrapped.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Cessna already had the ability to start that scrapping process after they stopped producing those legacy models in 1986. So if that was the case they would have never restarted production of some of those legacy models in 1996 and when Textron entered the picture simply let the existing legacy fleet die on the vine through attrition and lack of support.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
Now astronomical markups on commodity items just for an "approved" sticker, that's another matter entirely.

I too am very happy with my experimental. :)
Click to expand...

I've been hugging my experimental a lot lately after reading these heartbreaking threads on certified aircraft cost ... ;)
 
Daleandee said:
I've been hugging my experimental a lot lately after reading these heartbreaking threads on certified aircraft cost ... ;)
Click to expand...
… and parts availability. I've been waiting since last June for a propeller from McCauley for an O-200 and haven't found any inventory, new or used elsewhere :(
 
yabut the powerplant pricing and supply situation isn't solved by EAB tho, unless you break with the orthodoxy and go auto.

Of course, the irony is that I could find a spam can to replace the old one in present circumstances quicker than I can the RVs I've been looking (on and off) for now more than 4 years. The inventory situation is pathetic, which negates the so called savings. Well, unless you count not having an airplane as savings, in which case I'm winning like you read about lol.

At any rate, those who bought before 2020 are generally insulated from that pricing/inventory mess (born on 3rd base type of thing). I would know, I bought 3 airplanes in the 2010s. Like housing, it's a tone deaf affair to yap about costs from that vantage point. In fairness, if I was open to TW I prob could have found something in the price range by now. Digresing.

The concensus on reddit (a less affluent collective than here and thus less blind-spotted when it comes to aircraft ownership) is that this hobby has been dying a slow death for the last 40 years, and settling towards a volume stasis like Europe, complete with the airspace shrinkage for recreational use, probably complete in 20 years. I must say I agree with that assessment, and both regulators and OEMs (yes, even Cirrus, given their demographic) welcome that sunsetting. Parts and customer lead time is a big component of that suffocation.

I give the MOSAIC prayer rug crowd a lot of ish, but they're effectively finger on the pulse of the last corner of the ship above the water line. So I understand why they pin their hopes on that deus ex machina. LSA fanbois cope a lot, but the market rejected the things. The market wanted more performance and higher wing loading than what those kites offered, especially for no purchase price savings of consequence for a middle income wage earner. Hence why MOSAIC appears so much of a draw for the bottom of the market.

At this point, I'm rooting for everybody on a fire at will basis, auto conversions, EAB, LSA, whatever. This may be a case of carpe diem, cuz again like my fellow redditors all agree,I think this thing is toast (euro restricted access and affordability) in 20 anyways.
 
Bell206 said:
Yes. And always has been a legal path via the Part 43 alteration or the separate COTS processes. Now whether that path is as economical as purchasing an existing "approved" part is subjective to the owner. AC 23-27 and VARMA are simply a relatively new option and apply only to select aircraft built/certified prior to 1980 and covers any applicable aircraft to include Cessnas and so on. However, with VARMA I have yet to see any formal guidance issued by the FAA.

To use the OPs tail wheel example, you could use 23-27 for the tube substitution but the tire may require a bit more research as it is part of the landing gear dynamics. But since there are a number of solid core tailwheel options out there I would pursue finding a TSC or Amazon solid option to simplfy the install "approval."
Click to expand...
The challenge I see (from my n=1 sample size) is that the handful of shops I have talked to are not open to the idea of owner supplied parts or alternate substitutes (on my certified plane). For instance, when I wanted to produce something as simple as the U-shaped bracket that holds my alternator this past summer my 2 A&Ps both said no, we need to order the official part ($300+) from Boeing or buy a certified used component.

That's despite it being a dead simple part with no moving components, publicly available dimensions and materials, and as simple as can be. It's outrageous.

It was a similar situation when I wanted to make a replacement tab for the passenger seat rail. It's a stupid simple 1" tab with a couple screw holes, I could have printed up a dozen of on SendCutSend for $50 (I ended up finding the lost one so we avoided having to find a new part). But again they didn't want to entertain that idea.

That's led me to this lesson: rules aren't the whole picture. Practically speaking the mech really has final say on whether you can put it in the plane. If they want to be more conservative and reject any substitutes, you really have no recourse to force them to accept it. And I get it -- for their own livelihood sake they're not usually incentivized to take on additional downside risk if they don't have to. And going with the FAA sanctioned part is probably the "safe" choice in nearly all scenarios.

In short, just because there's a provision in the rules for this, it doesn't seem like it's always achievable unless you have someone willing to play ball. Just my experience!
 
Hindsight isnt wrong, but I can still hope he is. I think most of us are drawn to this hobby/lifestyle/profession because we're dreamers. I dont know what the E-AB situation is in Europe, but we've got to be only a few news stories away from a nanny-state crackdown on all aspects of GA. Aviating isnt a right, and if enough people fuss about how dangerous GA is, dont be surprised if things get more difficult for us.
 
I can’t see EU airspace restrictions being practical in the US, but I can see user fees for ATC services. Once that can of worms gets opened, airport user fees will be standard, too.

That’ll be the real death of GA. Sure, the legacy fleet is going to age out of airworthiness for stupid things like unobtainium parts ruddervator skins, landing gear motor gears, corrosion, general neglect and abandonment. That’ll leave a much smaller inventory of available aircraft so partnerships/clubs or 141 schools will be the de facto way to access. I also expect Rotax to be the only engine maker around long because they’ve already figured out you don’t need 100LL.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
In short, just because there's a provision in the rules for this, it doesn't seem like it's always achievable unless you have someone willing to play ball. Just my experience!
Click to expand...
Exactly. However, just remember your mechanic assumes 100% of the responsibility on that part installation and you assume 0%. So what incentive to you give him to assist you? But as I mentioned above, it is more on the mechanic side that this route isn’t taken as much and usually is due to the same reasons with several owner related.

For example, I would only provide this type of work to owners I knew well and had a good relationship with. Any other fly-by owners I wouldn’t. However, other reasons could be if your mechanics work at a CRS or are at an authorized service center, the use of non-standards parts is usually not permitted. So perhaps its time to seek out an independent mechanic who is open to working with you on these projects?

Unfortunately, since GARA passed, the changes to the IA authorizing process, and the rewrite of the field approval process in 2002, the number of mechanics willing to follow all the guidance available have dropped in numbers. But there still are a number of them out there who are game. Just as there still are FAA ASIs who are willing to sign field approvals. You just need to find them.

moparrob66 said:
I dont know what the E-AB situation is in Europe, but we've got to be only a few news stories away from a nanny-state crackdown on all aspects of GA.
Click to expand...
Not really. Any comparison of the EU EASA to the US FAA is moot on several levels and namely on the regulatory difference and being the EASA is a fee based system. The main issue I see in the US is that the private, recreational side of GA has been declining at a steady rate and is slowly losing ground in the airspace they share with commercial GA and UAVs who are continually growing in numbers. So unless you can reverse or at least flatten out that decline its not really a nanny-state issue but an internal market issue as fewer young people think recreational flying is the thing when they can fly their drone and get a similar experience for a lot less money.
 
My take is Type Clubs and Groups can help. Placing large orders for parts

would help everyone. There are parts that Cessna refers to as MTO; Made to

Order. This starts with a quote and if accepted; the process moves forward.

Next is ordering raw materials and combining them with the print to the

department actually making the part. In many cases Heat Treatment and or

corrosion treatment and/ or paint. All this for a “ Production Run” of 1.

ONE!! Not 100! It takes as much time to mix paint and clean spray runs

for ONE as for many times that. Very difficult to HT at different temps or

apply 2 colors similar simultaneously. The mfg does not know if the next

order for that part is 1 week or 10 years away. Note that the PMA

and STC folks generally begin with the biggest market. Not the smallest.


ie Anyone know where you can get a new muffler for a Varga Kachina?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top