Is a kit aircraft cheaper to maintain?

[116i]

Basic question, is a kit aircraft cheaper to maintain that's a factory built aircraft?

Can you carry out more maintenance on a kit that you can on a Cassna 150 say?

[Monocock]

Kit aircraft generally fall within the LAA's Permit to Fly regime, as opposed to the C of A system for certified aircraft such as the C150.

Yes, maintenance is cheaper, largely because you can do it yourself, or get a non certified company to do it for you, as long as it is then signed off by an LAA inspector.

You can expect to realistically have a cost of around £500 per annum maintenance with a Permit aircraft as opposed to between £1,500 and £10,000 (!) for a certified type.

These are ball park figures, but give a guide.

[POBJOY]

A Cessna 150 has to be the best value for money aircraft on the market.
Although a bit slow you get a 'production' machine with a great spares back up, that can live outside with care.
They were developed from a 'taildragger' (120-140) so are as tough as old boots,and anyone can fly them.
I remember well that the Beagle Pup and the ARV (remember that) were going to see them off, but they never did,and there will be 100 year old ones still going if regulations allow.

Cessna 150 1+1
Cessna 172 2+ 1or two small
Cessna 180/182 4 + full fuel and luggage.

All the above assumes you need to climb after t-off.

If you want a single seater a Turbulent or RF4 takes some beating.

Plus the Jodel 112-150 range (but need hangars)

[Monocock]

A Cessna 150 has to be the best value for money aircraft on the market.
Although a bit slow you get a 'production' machine with a great spares back up, that can live outside with care.
They were developed from a 'taildragger' (120-140) so are as tough as old boots,and anyone can fly them.
I remember well that the Beagle Pup and the ARV (remember that) were going to see them off, but they never did,and there will be 100 year old ones still going if regulations allow.

Cessna 150 1+1
Cessna 172 2+ 1or two small
Cessna 180/182 4 + full fuel and luggage.

All the above assumes you need to climb after t-off.

If you want a single seater a Turbulent or RF4 takes some beating.

Plus the Jodel 112-150 range (but need hangars)

Err, so how is that relevant to the OP's question? :rolleyes:

[Maoraigh1]

All homebuilt aircraft in the UK are LAA permit-to-fly or BMAA. Both will allow owner maintanance, which will save a LOT of money.
Some are from a kit, some are built from plans, with no kit. They will vary in how robust they are.
Some factory built aircraft are also on LAA permit-to-fly - e.g the Jodel DR1050 2+2 seater I fly and part own. We made great savings when we went from C of A to a permit - but lost night and instrument flying.

[Rod1]

You will save a lot of cash by going for an LAA aircraft instead of a C of A. I had an AA5B on C of A which averaged out at about £5k per year; My MCR is averaging under £500 PA after 8 years. You do not save just the labor, the bits are less. A Rotax 912ULS is around £5k less than a Rotax 912ULS. The same engine, built on the same production line from the same parts but no certified paperwork and no certification cost to pay for. An uncertified glass panel like an MGL is around 1/10th of the cost of certified kit and even things like instruments are around ½ the cost.

Rod1

[A and C]

As a general rule LAA types are cheaper to run but most LAA types are less capable in terms of range & payload.

Those LAA types that are more capable ( Vans aircraft spring to mind) are going to be closer to the price of a C of A aircraft.

What makes the LAA types cheap to run is the fact that you can do your own maintenance, however don't mistake DIY maintainence for an easy option your LAA inspector will expect your work to be up to the same standard that the best in the professional maintenance business. If you like getting your hands dirty the LAA is a good option, if not forget the idea because it will end in tears !

[116i]

Guys thanks for all the information. I'm hoping my skills will be upto scratch as I was an aircraft engineer for 12 years, carrying out repairs and servicing on aircraft.
The info about which kit to chose is useful also, thanks!
We are a family of 4 so 4 seats is a must as we holiday a lot in France and IoM!

Thanks again guys!

[Monocock]

If you like getting your hands dirty the LAA is a good option, if not forget the idea because it will end in tears !

That's not true.

Many LAA owners pay engineers (retired and/or current) to carry out the work on their aircraft.

[manix-cs]

See the LAA leaflet below which gives details of what work needs inspecting and what work can be signed off by the pilot/owner;

http://lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TechnicalLeaflets/Operating%20An%20Aircraft/TL%202.05%20Pilot%20Maintenance.pdf

Even where maintenance work needs to be carried out by an engineer, it's far far cheaper than the certified work required for a CAA type.

[stickandrudderman]

Yes. Owning an LAA aircraft is much, much cheaper that owning a certified one.
The ability to self-maintain and the lack of a requirement for certified parts are the key savers.
However, as already stated, the lack of night and IFR flying is a limitation although there's talk of that changing but who knows when or if.
I would also counter that in order to get the full benefit you need to be reasonably well-informed in the ways of making/fixing/repairing/maintaining mechanical things but even if you're not there are those that will do it for you at much less cost than it would be if done through the certified channels.
My annual on my Falco just cost me £350.00.

[A and C]

You are misunderstanding me !

Those who pay for the aircraft to be maintaned are usualy OK..... it is those who think that DIY maintenance is the way forward and attempt it with little or no knowlage who get burnt.

As an LAA inspector I sometimes get asked to inspect aircraft maintaned by these people and it ends in tears when I wont sign for poor workmanship.

LAA aircraft usualy fall into two camps, the majority are very well maintaned and a credit to their owners .............. and the others !

[cambioso]

So the basic answer to the basic question is................................."Yes".

[robin]

No, I think like everything, it depends

I know of some CofA types that need only standard maintenance, that, to be honest is a little more than the cost of a Permit. However I also know of a number of real dogs of a kit-build. They will become moneypits.

So be very careful when buying a non factory-built. You don't know who originally built it and how good they were. Personally, having seen some real horror stories, I would never think of a kit-built, only a factory-built.

[Pilot DAR]

I second the sentiment presented by Robin and others. There's a lot of "depends" in this. If you have the experience, capability and facility to perform airworthy maintenance, and are willing to apply lots of your time at low value, you can make good advantage of none certified parts - if you can buy/make them in airworthy condition, to maintain a non C of A plane. My second plane is formerly certified, now "Owner Maintenance". It is cost competitive with my simpler C of A Cessna.

However, comparing the cost to buy a new, or used airworthy parts for a common Cessna or Piper, to the cost to fabricate a specialty part for the amateur built aircraft, which could be much more complex, or a whole higher assembly, there may not be a cost saving at all. Even if you choose to have a professional maintainer take care of your amateur built 'cause you recognize it's beyond your capacity, he may have to overcome maintenance and parts availability issues which would not be a challenge for the C of A type. You pay for that.

My experience has been that the common Cessna, Piper and like aluminum aircraft were designed for easy maintenance (access), an generally simple repair/replacement of common wear and damage parts. Designs for amateur built aircraft are often nowhere near as well thought out this way. For those that are, they are priced accordingly, and accordingly priced.

Take very good inventory of your capacity to maintain, before going DYI....

[Rod1]

“If you have the experience, capability and facility to perform airworthy maintenance,”

The facility that 99% of the LAA fleet require is the shed the aircraft is kept in on a daily basis. Previous experience is not a requirement. The LAA inspector system, other owners and the educational courses run specifically to help members learn how to look after LAA aircraft are all that you will need. None of this is new, it has been going on quietly all over the UK for 50 years plus and has kept pace with technology. You want to learn how to wire the latest uncertified glass into your machine, there is a course for that, etc etc.

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

[A and C]

Take very good inventory of your capacity to maintain, before going DYI

[magpienja]

I maybe wrong but aren't permit types limited to 2 seats.

[ak7274]

No. How about an RV10?

[carlmeek]

There are not many... But some... RV10, Jabiru 430/450 and the stunning pioneer 400. Not all inspectors can inspect 4 seaters I think.

[Jonty]

Lancair Evo, if you have a cool $1.5m

[robin]

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

.. and I have seen 2 examples of newbuilt kit aircraft that cost large amounts to rebuild because of issues over quality of build (Rod1 can pm me for details if he wishes)

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

[Rod1]

“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

[Maoraigh1]

O.P.We are a family of 4 so 4 seats is a must as we holiday a lot in France and IoM!

Look carefully at the permitted all-up weight, and the actual empty weight of the particular aircraft you consider buying.

[Pilot DAR]

Previous experience is not a requirement.

Well.... With the effective execution of very well understood training, I suppose that that experience is not so necessary. So if you have the time and commitment to correctly absorb training, that's an excellent start. If you have the enthusiasm, that's wonderful, but to be fair when computing value, what's your time worth?

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....

[Rod1]

“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.:rolleyes:

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

[Pilot DAR]

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.

Enthusiast is great - the best thing for the non certified industry. Let's go back to the original question though; "Is the amateur built plane cheaper to maintain than certified?".

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.

[rtl_flyer]

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...


The (LAA) Permit system is nothing like the US Experimental. This is principally why the LAA discourage the import of pre-built kits from the US. The prices often look cheaper than similar examples here but often require re-work and non approved MODS removed.

As with all things in life, there are good and bad examples (aircraft).

[FleetFlyer]

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.

[Crash one]

I maybe wrong but aren't permit types limited to 2 seats.


No. How many are in a Vulcan?

[LowNSlow]

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.

[robin]

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

[Ebbie 2003]

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:)

[patowalker]

Rather than an opportunity cost, I see the time spent working on my aircraft as great entertaiment value.

[Maoraigh1]

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.

I agree completely with you. But the OP's question was about kit aircraft. Some of the best value permit aircraft were originally factory built.

[Rod1]

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

[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. 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 (http://www.dynaero.com/en/files/)

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 (http://www.rotax-owner.com/support-bulletin)

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

[Maoraigh1]

One of the savings of a Kit built aircraft over a CofA aircraft in the UK is that you do not need a CAMO.
Should "Kit built" not be replaced with "Permit"? Whether Kit-built, built from plans, or factory built.

[robin]

Quite right - there is a bit of a confusion over whether this thread is about Permit aircraft or kits.

[Rod1]

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

[robin]

True, Rod

But would it be a true Jodel.....:=