Is a kit aircraft cheaper to maintain?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is really not as hard as the casual observer may think and as I have saved in the region of £70,000 over 8 years in total running costs compared with my old C of A aircraft I am very pleased with how the system worked for me.
Rod1
Rod1
CofA aircraft too have these issues - I'm not pretending they don't. But be careful about buying any aircraft on the basis of 'finger in the wind' maintenance savings. If you buy a dog, you will be spending a lot more than you expect
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“I maybe wrong but aren't permit types limited to 2 seats.”
Max is 4. Quite a number of 4 seaters now in the system, many being orphaned factory built aircraft like the Jodel 1050 / Auters etc. The Pioneer 400 is now LAA approved and gives 4 seat capacity and retractable gear on a Rotax 914 turbo. Vans and Jaberu 4 seaters are also approved.
Rod1
Max is 4. Quite a number of 4 seaters now in the system, many being orphaned factory built aircraft like the Jodel 1050 / Auters etc. The Pioneer 400 is now LAA approved and gives 4 seat capacity and retractable gear on a Rotax 914 turbo. Vans and Jaberu 4 seaters are also approved.
Rod1
O.P.
Look carefully at the permitted all-up weight, and the actual empty weight of the particular aircraft you consider buying.
We are a family of 4 so 4 seats is a must as we holiday a lot in France and IoM!
Moderator
Previous experience is not a requirement.
If you're buying an amateur built aircraft because you love to spend your time working on planes, excellent, have at it, learn and build the experience.
If you think you're buying amateur built to "save money" what's your time worth? "I saved $1000, but I spent 50 hours of my time and another $200 in tools to do it". If it works for you, that's great, just go in with your eyes open...
I have seen a lot of unairworthy amateur builts sitting in tiedowns and hangars 'cause an enthusiast overlooked something - And to end on a deserved positive, there are a lot of great amateur built aircraft flying over unairworthy C of A types that their owners could not afford either....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“but to be fair when computing value, what's your time worth?”
This comes up a lot and it is often misunderstood by some. My son is at university. He will come out with a big student loan and it will have cost me around £16k on top. Instead of going to uni and doing a degree in airframes and engines I learned on the job from my inspector. In 1800 hours I learned a huge number of skills including avionics, composite construction, building CS props, etc etc. At the end I came out with the knowledge and an aircraft which has saved me around £70,000 so far. Would I do it again – you bet!
Part of the reason for the LAA charter is to teach ordinary folk about building and maintaining aircraft. The amazing part about it is it cost me nothing in tuition fees! The people who criticize the LAA the most in my experience are the “professionals” who have had the £70k taken out of there back pockets. I make no money from working on other peoples aircraft, I am an enthusiast, but some of the people who are throwing rocks do have a financial interest.
You do not have to build an aircraft to be able to maintain it, the LAA and its inspectors / members can teach that to your average joe with no problem at all. If you work on keeping your aircraft it tip top condition on the days when the weather is bad, the amount of time required at the annual inspection is greatly reduced. Understanding the aircraft you fly is a big aid to safety, as well as saving hard earned cash.
With regard to abandoned, useless home built aircraft – is this in the UK? The build process is very tightly monitored in the UK and whilst I accept that one or two bad eggs may exist, it is, in my 25 years of LAA experience, very uncommon. The build book for a UK LAA machine contains a lot of build stages. Each one is inspected and signed off. If any one is not up to scratch then it has to be rectified. If you have a person who is really not up to it then he will have failed stages 1-3 and given up long before he gets to 100.
Rod1
This comes up a lot and it is often misunderstood by some. My son is at university. He will come out with a big student loan and it will have cost me around £16k on top. Instead of going to uni and doing a degree in airframes and engines I learned on the job from my inspector. In 1800 hours I learned a huge number of skills including avionics, composite construction, building CS props, etc etc. At the end I came out with the knowledge and an aircraft which has saved me around £70,000 so far. Would I do it again – you bet!
Part of the reason for the LAA charter is to teach ordinary folk about building and maintaining aircraft. The amazing part about it is it cost me nothing in tuition fees! The people who criticize the LAA the most in my experience are the “professionals” who have had the £70k taken out of there back pockets. I make no money from working on other peoples aircraft, I am an enthusiast, but some of the people who are throwing rocks do have a financial interest.
You do not have to build an aircraft to be able to maintain it, the LAA and its inspectors / members can teach that to your average joe with no problem at all. If you work on keeping your aircraft it tip top condition on the days when the weather is bad, the amount of time required at the annual inspection is greatly reduced. Understanding the aircraft you fly is a big aid to safety, as well as saving hard earned cash.
With regard to abandoned, useless home built aircraft – is this in the UK? The build process is very tightly monitored in the UK and whilst I accept that one or two bad eggs may exist, it is, in my 25 years of LAA experience, very uncommon. The build book for a UK LAA machine contains a lot of build stages. Each one is inspected and signed off. If any one is not up to scratch then it has to be rectified. If you have a person who is really not up to it then he will have failed stages 1-3 and given up long before he gets to 100.
Rod1
Moderator
In 1800 hours I learned a huge number of skills including avionics, composite construction, building CS props, etc etc. At the end I came out with the knowledge and an aircraft which has saved me around £70,000 so far.
If this an apples to apples type comparison, we're comparing something like a C150 to an RV-6. (yeah, I know the RV-6 blows the doors off the 150, but they are similarly complex) For argument's sake, annually the same value in consumable parts and labour hours would be required for each plane - let's say £4000 (I had to copy that £, my computer does not type them!). Though much cheaper, the amateur built still had to spend something on parts (£500). So DYI, you could apply your time to save £3500 per year. 'Sounds like Rod has done this for 20 years - excellent. But that's also £70,000 income he could not earn, as his time was spent at his passion instead - excellent! As it should be with one's passion. Perhaps Rod had some previous time invested in learning too - Excellent, but an investment also.
So the original question - is it cheaper? Probably yes, as long as you apply your free time as a passion toward it for no reward other than the maintenance of the aircraft, 'cause you still have to earn the money to operate it on top of that!
I'm certainly not knocking the non C of A route to aircraft ownership - one of my two planes is in that category, and I would not have it any other way. One day, I'll move the other one in too (though I'm waiting to see if the FAA will change its rules to allow it to be flown into the US in that category before I do.). For the sake of objectivity, I work in aviation, but I do not make money from the maintenance or modification of light personal aircraft. Indeed, I spend measurable time for no return advising owners of those aircraft how to not need design approval services for repairs and modifications.
if the amateur build - non C of A fleet in the UK is a gleaming 95% operational group of well maintained aircraft, I am delighted. That would be quite an improvement over what I have seen in Canada and the US...
I'm not knocking those in the non C of A world, and I'm delighted that they would encourage others to join their passion - just give full disclosure...
The effort in maintenance is about the same to be airborne irrespective of aircraft certification basis (though a few demand more than their fair share of care). Non certified parts are likely cheaper, but that saving could be offset by lesser availability, or having to actually make/pay to have made the part for no availability. Understand ALL the costs, both money and time, before choosing the aircraft in which to be airborne. If you end up having to pay for the maintenance on your amateur built, it might not be a saving afterall.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if the amateur build - non C of A fleet in the UK is a gleaming 95% operational group of well maintained aircraft, I am delighted. That would be quite an improvement over what I have seen in Canada and the US...
As with all things in life, there are good and bad examples (aircraft).
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an awful lot of caveatting going on here, which is useful for providing substance to arguments, but it may also muddy the waters somewhat.
In simple terms, a permit aeroplane in the UK is much cheaper to maintain than its closest CofA based equivalent. The exact proportions will vary from type to type, but I can think of no aeroplane that got more expensive to maintain when it moved from CofA to permit based administration.
I think that if nobody can come up with an example of an aeroplane getting more expensive to maintain when moved to the permit system, then you have a definitive answer to the OP's question.
This includes the cost of labour debate, as regardless of the amount of work having to be done, and parts input, the paperwork burden will always be less, meaning there will always be a lower cost to the permit based aircraft owner.
In simple terms, a permit aeroplane in the UK is much cheaper to maintain than its closest CofA based equivalent. The exact proportions will vary from type to type, but I can think of no aeroplane that got more expensive to maintain when it moved from CofA to permit based administration.
I think that if nobody can come up with an example of an aeroplane getting more expensive to maintain when moved to the permit system, then you have a definitive answer to the OP's question.
This includes the cost of labour debate, as regardless of the amount of work having to be done, and parts input, the paperwork burden will always be less, meaning there will always be a lower cost to the permit based aircraft owner.
I took an Auster J1 from being on a CofA to a LAA Permit and I think it saves me about £500/year on reduced costs for the annual inspection.
If the aircraft does more than 50 hours per year then you will save on the cost of the 50 and 100 hour inspections if you are prepared to get your hands dirty.
If the aircraft does more than 50 hours per year then you will save on the cost of the 50 and 100 hour inspections if you are prepared to get your hands dirty.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sounds about right to me. Anywhere between £500-1500+ pa depending on the health of the aircraft.
We save some money by doing a load of tasks ourselves. A 50hr inspection on a friend's C172 cost them around £300+. As we do ours ourselves with the agreement of the CAMO, it costs us the price of the oil + some consumables
We save some money by doing a load of tasks ourselves. A 50hr inspection on a friend's C172 cost them around £300+. As we do ours ourselves with the agreement of the CAMO, it costs us the price of the oil + some consumables
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Barbados
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a rule the simple answer is "yes" in simple cash terms.
This assumes a like for like airplane.
Ones own time is a cost - so it depends on how much ones values ones own time - could one be doing other things with the time, does one value them more (it's what economists call opportunity cost).
From my perspective I could be doing certain work on my US registered (non-permit) airplane - as it happens it is having some paint touched up (a permitted acitivity by a pilot) - I could do it myself but I would then have to lose earnings from my regular employment, or if done at weekends would have to do less diving. I choose to earn cash during the week and dive at the weekend, besides which it's good to give work to the local engineers
This assumes a like for like airplane.
Ones own time is a cost - so it depends on how much ones values ones own time - could one be doing other things with the time, does one value them more (it's what economists call opportunity cost).
From my perspective I could be doing certain work on my US registered (non-permit) airplane - as it happens it is having some paint touched up (a permitted acitivity by a pilot) - I could do it myself but I would then have to lose earnings from my regular employment, or if done at weekends would have to do less diving. I choose to earn cash during the week and dive at the weekend, besides which it's good to give work to the local engineers
I think that if nobody can come up with an example of an aeroplane getting more expensive to maintain when moved to the permit system, then you have a definitive answer to the OP's question.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify, the £70,000 was on total running costs, not just maintenance. Total maintenance savings over that time are in excess of £36,000 and most of the time spent is time I had allocated to flying anyway.
If we are comparing a C150 with something I would not use an RV6 – that is daft, it has around 50% more power, I would chose the RV12 which has similar power. In the UK a kit built RV12 will save you around £28,000 over an 8 year timespan (on maintenance). Alternatively a D117, which is cheaper to buy than a c150, would save around £16,000 for the same period. The situation outside the UK is very different so drawing comparisons is not too useful.
Rod1
If we are comparing a C150 with something I would not use an RV6 – that is daft, it has around 50% more power, I would chose the RV12 which has similar power. In the UK a kit built RV12 will save you around £28,000 over an 8 year timespan (on maintenance). Alternatively a D117, which is cheaper to buy than a c150, would save around £16,000 for the same period. The situation outside the UK is very different so drawing comparisons is not too useful.
Rod1
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the savings of a Kit built aircraft over a CofA aircraft in the UK is that you do not need a CAMO. Most of the locals to me with C of A aircraft are paying about £800 - £1000 a year to a CAMO. Because there is no CAMO it is the owners responsibility to bring to the inspectors attention any new SERVICE BULLETINS before the permit work starts. Any urgent issues such as Mandatory Permit Directives will be sent to the owner during the year but in this case you have to do some work. So what are we talking – a weeks work? NOPE, takes me about 1 hour.
Firstly I look at this site;
Files | Dyn'Aero
Any new items since the last permit are printed out for the inspector. In this case there are none for my aircraft.
I then go onto the Rotax owner site and enter my engine serial number.
Rotax-Owner.com - Rotax-Owner.com - Support
This spits out the issues for my engine and I am only interested in new stuff. In my case there are none for my engine.
You then check the TADS page on the LAA site for your aircraft to see if there is anything new. For my aircraft it was last updated in 2009.
You go through the list with your inspector who also checks his SPARS list. You agree a list of any extra work required over and above the existing list for maintenance and inspection and you get started.
Because I do a certain amount of rolling maintenance during the year – generally when I was planning on flying but the weather was bad, the actual permit generally takes me 2 weekends. I will be starting mine in a few weeks if anyone is interested in coming over and having a look. It is not at all scary and is mostly common sense.
I have probably just hexed my aircraft and will be grounded for the rest of the year..
Rod1
Firstly I look at this site;
Files | Dyn'Aero
Any new items since the last permit are printed out for the inspector. In this case there are none for my aircraft.
I then go onto the Rotax owner site and enter my engine serial number.
Rotax-Owner.com - Rotax-Owner.com - Support
This spits out the issues for my engine and I am only interested in new stuff. In my case there are none for my engine.
You then check the TADS page on the LAA site for your aircraft to see if there is anything new. For my aircraft it was last updated in 2009.
You go through the list with your inspector who also checks his SPARS list. You agree a list of any extra work required over and above the existing list for maintenance and inspection and you get started.
Because I do a certain amount of rolling maintenance during the year – generally when I was planning on flying but the weather was bad, the actual permit generally takes me 2 weekends. I will be starting mine in a few weeks if anyone is interested in coming over and having a look. It is not at all scary and is mostly common sense.
I have probably just hexed my aircraft and will be grounded for the rest of the year..
Rod1
One of the savings of a Kit built aircraft over a CofA aircraft in the UK is that you do not need a CAMO.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OP mentioned kit aircraft, but most of the info applies to anything on an LAA permit. I am currently helping upgrade a Jodel (1960) with an Alternator, Mode S transponder and Glass. If the aircraft had still been CofA the cost would have been at least £15k higher. This is on an Aircraft which has 4 seats and was on a CofA until just a few years ago. This saving is mostly on the hardware and represents about 3/5 of the value of the aircraft. Chances are if it had still been CofA the upgrade would never have been attempted.
Rod1
Rod1