Quandary!

M

Magman

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
2,031
Display Name
Display name:
Magman
3 folks have joint ownership of a Cherokee 140. One guy flies a lot more than the other
2 combined. So his contribution to the Maintenance Fund is quite high. However; he does Take offs and Landings. LOTS of them. The concern is what effect this is having on the
50+ year old aircraft. The other 2 would like him to do more Instrument or Airwork to preserve the aircrsft.

How would you handle this?

No problem ; keep doing it?

Talk to him about concerns?

They don’t want this to affect the friendship or break up the group. Any studies that reference this is appreciated.

Obviously; tire and brake wear accelerated. Wing , engine or other concerns?

Comments please.
 
Im Part of a 5 person 182. We pay hourly rate wet. Plus divide up annual and fixed costs evenly- hangar/insurance/xm/garmin ect. The hourly rate goes to engine fund and fuel.
What another partner does with the plane on their time on the prop is up to them IMO. As long as they are flying safely and competently I don’t care. I would never approach another partner about what kind of flying they are doing as long as it’s safe. I doubt they would ever say anything to me either.

side note: we have guys at our field like this. Just take offs landing. Pattern princes. Never leave. Boggles my mind. I will go up and stay in pattern for some currency issues if it’s been a bit but I always look to go somewhere, even if it’s a different airport to do approaches or t&g. For me. Pattern work…is work. Going places or sightseeing is fun.
 
So much per hour, plus another buck or two per touchdown?
 
I understand your quandary and do not have statistics on accelerated wear from too many landings regarding wear on brakes, tires, landing gear, wings, etc. For every landing there has to be an associated takeoff and my backyard mechanic sense tells me that an engine is more stressed under load such as takeoff than it is at lower cruise RPMs. That’s the most expensive part to replace compared to tires and brakes.

I have never been a joint owner of an airplane but the flight club I belonged to which had many rental aircraft never had a restriction on the number of takeoff and landings. Best is to hope someone knowledgable about maintenance will chime in and say it is a non-issue and nothing to resolve.
 
As long as he is paying for the gas and his portion of the maintenance, I think the plane is benefiting from not being a hangar queen. I worry much more about my plane being inactive than I do about wearing it out. Changing the rules after the fact is a much bigger problem.
 
I personally have no info on accelerated wear. There is once case where this was a problem in my memory. Down in Florida at embry riddle there was a crash a few years back, they had an aircraft which had main spar damage because the airplane had withstood an abnormal amount of landings over its life and both spars were cracked, something like 30,000 landings being a training airplane. Then they took off and a wing fell off on a check ride. After that they inspected the other aircraft in the fleet and found one or two others to have cracks. There should be plenty of news articles about it, not sure what model of piper it was.
In my personal experience, a flight school that I worked at picked up a Cherokee 140 and one of the wing spars was no Bueno and they bought a new wing for it, so I don't know how bad this issue is but It definitely bears further consideration.
 
I wouldn’t have a problem with it at all. Now if it were a retract maybe I’d think differently.
He’s paying more than the others, so that should cover the tires. Doubt he’s going through brakes any faster if he’s doing T&G’s. Pilots that focus on pattern work tend to be good. He’s probably the more competent of the 3. Therefore he’s less likely to side load the gear, make hard landings, or other damaging moves. Wouldn’t worry about the engine either. If that engine can’t handle pattern work they have more important issues.
 
Last edited:
I would say it isn’t an issue. The plane was built to be a trainer i.e. lots of takeoffs and landings. I think tire wear will probably be the only additional cost and is minimum enough to just build into the hourly rates.
I agree just flying it regularly is probably the best thing for the plane.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Last edited:
allthesetouch&goesbutno said:
I personally have no info on accelerated wear. There is once case where this was a problem in my memory. Down in Florida at embry riddle there was a crash a few years back, they had an aircraft which had main spar damage because the airplane had withstood an abnormal amount of landings over its life and both spars were cracked, something like 30,000 landings being a training airplane. Then they took off and a wing fell off on a check ride. After that they inspected the other aircraft in the fleet and found one or two others to have cracks. There should be plenty of news articles about it, not sure what model of piper it was.
In my personal experience, a flight school that I worked at picked up a Cherokee 140 and one of the wing spars was no Bueno and they bought a new wing for it, so I don't know how bad this issue is but It definitely bears further consideration.
Click to expand...
The ERAU incident had more to do with poor maintenance. The plane had numerous red flags and while take off cycles may have played a part, I doubt total cycles was the primary cause. The ntsb report has this pretty damning note "The board also found reports of reported flap extension overspeed, gear extension overspeed and hard landing events in the aircraft’s logs"
 
I fly way more than my partner but our agreement was to split maintenance and fixed cost 50/50. He can fly more if he wants. He chooses not to and honestly sometimes I think he likes the idea of owning an airplane more than flying it.

I do a lot of take offs and landings. I have averaged 3.6 per flight over the years. I do mostly local flying and go from airport to airport. Landings are the fun part for me. Sometimes especially in the tailwheel I will just go out and knock out 8 or 10 landings. I think it makes me better. I would honestly be EXTREMELY unhappy if you tried to change the agreement on me after the fact or tried to tell me what I need to do to stay proficient. The wear and tear on a plane built as a trainer is negligible and I would argue if he is more proficient at landing than the others each landing is probably less wear and tear than those that have less practice and are putting more load on the gear. My advice...Lighten up Francis.
 
How would I handle it if it was me.....I'd buy out the other two or sell my share. I mean really, trying to tell a part owner how to fly? Show me in the agreement where it says I can't do repeated take offs and landings.
 
I think the flying partner is doing the nonflying partners a favor. Airplanes were meant to fly, not sit. Flying partner is keeping it from becoming a hangar queen. My partners have always paid equally into maintenance whoever's flying.
 
This part of why I bought my friends 172 for my first plane. I could afford it by myself and didn't have to have partners. This was before the prices of 172 started to take off. My late friend is rolling over in his grave thinking about what he sold to me for with today's prices.
I have flown it a 1000 hrs and well over 2000 landings since 2018. Some nights I will do 10 or more T&Gs at several airports. I put new tires on summer 2018 and they are bald now. I have new tires to put on here soon. These will last a whole lot longer since I spend most of my time exploring grass strips now a days.

These are Dresser monster retreads with 11/16" deep tread, should last me for a while.
IMG_1542.JPG
 
Last edited:
simtech said:
I mean really, trying to tell a part owner how to fly? Show me in the agreement where it says I can't do repeated take offs and landings.
Click to expand...

In reading the OP, it doesn’t sound like the other partners are exactly telling anyone how to fly, not yet anyway. Sounds more like they are concerned (unnecessary) about the airplane’s ongoing condition. There’re researching, seeking advice to determine if there’s any justifiable reason to be worried about their airplane. Obviously there’s not. If anything, it’s probably beneficial to the airplanes ongoing conditions. Sounds to me like they are handling this well, by reaching out that is. Much better than acting foolishly out of speculation.
 
Last edited:
Magman said:
How would you handle this?
Click to expand...
Unless you're part of this group, I'd stay out of it. They appear to be only looking for a fall guy to pressure the guy to change his ways. If they truly are "friends" shouldn't they be able to discuss this? Besides if they were serious about "preserving" the aircraft perhaps they should get out and fly more themselves. As to landings counts, the only aircraft where I've seen that number matter are aircraft with life limits or OH schedules that use landings as the tracking number.
 
“The rest of the story”.
New engine has about 20 hrs SMOH.
Old engine suffered a failure of cylinder studs that had 1 jug nearly depart.
Pilot #1 was flying.
Cause of the stud failures was never determined.
 
If they are friends and and want to stay that way then there isn’t a problem.
 
Oh; I’m definitely staying out of it. I did say I would post the issue here for comment.
The runway is a little shorter and narrower than most and nearly always has a crosswind

Cherokees have the wheel offset from the strut. Thus heavy braking will. “ torque” the lower end causing bending loads on the torque links and there attach points. I’m guessing someone became aware of the AD and SB on these components
I’m sure the taper wing AD didn’t help either.

This could be a case of wanting to fly and not considering other interesting options. That could include airwork like chandelles, lazy eights etc or basic instrument such as Vertical S’s or holding patterns. Practice can be done in VMC
with no hood.
 
So it seems the consensus is there is no Technical concern with Pattern v Airwork.

Some folks shy away from former trainer aircraft . Generally they fly more and may be better.
 
Magman said:
So it seems the consensus is there is no Technical concern with Pattern v Airwork.

Some folks shy away from former trainer aircraft . Generally they fly more and may be better.
Click to expand...
Former trainer implies 5 - 7 days a week of students slamming it down figuring it out, literally hundreds of times a day. Very different than a once a week certificated pilot doing a few landings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top