When do helis get junked?

[Graviman]

From previous threads, and conversations, i have learned that the biggest single cost of heli operation is depreciation. For 12 years i have run the same car, partly because it amuses me to be fashion unconscious, and partly because i am interested in undestanding life-cycle modes of failure (at least that's my excuse).

What i am really after is a rough survey of anyone involved in the decision to junk a chopper. I would like to understand the circumstances which led to it, and the actual reason for scrapping it. If you have been involved in a "premature unserviceability" incident i'd like to hear about that too - insurance companies can generally be persuade that a design is likely to have reduced accident rates. No points are awarded for amusing anecdotes - apart from the respect of your peers. ;)

Mart

[B Sousa]

I think the answer is Never, unless its destroyed beyond recognition. Even then Im sure Data plates get moved around.
I dont think I have ever flown for a company that had anything new and a good amount of them were rebuilds from someones screwup.
Just remember a nice paint job, is just that, a piece of S:mad: underneath is still a piece of S:mad:
Maybe Im working for the wrong companies, but then so are a lot of other folks. As long as it meets the FAA/CAA rules its gonna fly and make money.

[Graviman]

Thanks BSousa, this is already helping me. I did wonder if this was the case. Would you say that any repair/maintenance cost is just weighed up against the current value? I presume heli companies survive on spare parts business then. What would you say was the main contributor to machine depreciation?

Mart

[B Sousa]

Depreciation is something I really know little about. Helicopters seem to be supply and demand. An example is a used B306L3 may not be as in demand as a B407, therefore one cant get a good price. B407s again are a good example. they are getting almost as much as new for Airframes 3-4 years old with low times.
As with most Helicopters you can place two side by side. Both look nice but one has major components due for change soon and the other has plenty of time left on the major components. The difference in price is staggering.
Accident history is also another factor in used purchases.

Also if one is in the helicopter business and doing work without a lot of public exposure, why buy new. A used B206L4 at say $750k will do the same work as a new one at $1.1M. If you have a large enough shop abd access to parts, you can build up a wreck, cheaply purchased, to get your work done. When your out in the bush, pretty does not count.
Thats also a big controversey with the civilian B205A1 and the Military Surplus UH-1. Both basically the same but purchase price for a good used B205 over $1M and a good used UH-1 around $250K. (UH-1 must be STCd for restricted category, wheras the B205 can carry Pax)
Hope that helps a bit albeit I still dont think I answered your original question.

[Graviman]

"Hope that helps a bit albeit I still dont think I answered your original question."

But the information you are giving is fantastic. I'm really trying to understand the economics of helis, particularly in regards to cost. It comes out of stuff learned in:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=172145

Basically what your saying is that cost is effectively more to do with the need to replace parts, than actual hours accumulated.

I'm a designer in an industry where we design trucks for 15'000 hours service life. OK we don't fit rotors or use composites, but i'm finding a lot of the general engineering experience useful to helis (once you've read Prouty). Generally the trucks have axles and transmissions replaced, and it is the engine that seems to dictate useful service life. This makes sense, since engines are continuously developed, and much of the truck systems are developed around the powertrain. I imagine the same to be true of helis. In the auto industry it was more about being seen to have a new design, rather than real technical improvement.

Further thoughts anyone?

Mart

[Gomer Pylot]

This may vary by country, but in the US there is no limit on the number of hours that an airframe can fly, neither fixed nor rotary wing. Most moving parts have a limited life, but not all. The only time an airframe is junked is when it isn't economically feasible to restore it, and that is very seldom. There is no regulatory prohibition against rebuilding one, as long as the data plate is still extant.

Installing new engines, or any other part different from the original certificated ones, can be rather expensive, since a Supplemental Type Certificate has to be obtained, and the process is expensive. In a truck, there are no certification issues, so you can replace parts willy-nilly without having to obtain government permission. With aircraft, you can only use approved replacement parts, at least for commercial operations.

[Hilico]

No direct experience, but I do remember reading in one of the mags about a US law department that wanted to finish with its 206s as, with 26000 hours on, they were uneconomic to run.

[B Sousa]

" cost is effectively more to do with the need to replace parts, than actual hours accumulated."

I have to be a bit careful here. Most major components are repalced because of time. The airframe itself just accumluates hours. Each major component has a lifetime after which it is either destroyed as in Rotor Blades or rebuilt as in Engine, Transmission etc. If problems occur between times you will also have to consider added expense. Non time life items are usually repair as needed, seats, interior etc.
There is a chart out with operating costs for most helicopters but its a guide or reference rather than etched in stone.
Im also hoping others will get in on this and bail me out a bit as Im just a Pilot not a Maintenance type.
Your initial purchase of a Helicopter should be determined by what you plan on using it for. If you are doing work in the bush, slingloads etc, the aircraft does not have to have all the bells and whistles. wheras if you are using the same type aircraft for VIP transport etc. in comes the leather interior, Bose Headsets and other toys. Many different uses for a helicopter and therefore the inital investment for the same basic helicopter can go from very low to very high.

[Graviman]

This is fantastic info guys! Just what i'm after to get a picture of heli operating costs.

I'm amazed at the idea of a 206 with 26000 hours! I had wondered whether there was a design life with the aluminium - this is a big factor with pressurised airframes.

One thing i would like to know, just as an example. Say i had a high hours R22 that was otherwise servicable, but needed a complete transmissions and engine overhaul (due to normal wear - bearings, liners etc). Would i just go ahead and get the work done, or would i be better off weighing up repair estimates against machine worth then deciding whether or not to junk it? In the european automotive industry you are forever fighting a losing battle with trade value, but the truck industry is more sensible. I chose the R22 since it is a piston powered GA machine.

Mart

[B Sousa]

I dont know boo about R-22s but your question applies to most all.
If you can get the machine cheap and get the work done properly at a good price, it may be a good deal.......The other thing is............IF your not in the industry and know nothing about Helicopters, you might as well hand the folks your wallet and bend over.........cause your gonna get hosed.....
This is the difference between having your own shop, having someone do the work or buying a new machine. Those three mentioned items will get you three different prices.
If you plan on doing a "Project" you had better have someone trustworthy and I mean someone who thinks you will kill their firstborn if they screwup or cheat you. I have seen too many folks eat big repair bills.

Hillico writes"but I do remember reading in one of the mags about a US law department that wanted to finish with its 206s as, with 26000 hours on, they were uneconomic to run."
I believe that was Los Angeles PD. They have a huge fleet and a bigger budget, so economical may not have been the factor. Someone just wanted newer toys. California Highway Patrol is the same they have tons of money and spend it like its water.
Los Angeles Sheriffs Office for example just dumped all there MD900s?? or something like that and bought a bunch of AS-350s. When money is no object ,your only limited by your imagination.

[slowrotor]

I was told to think of the R-22 as a kind of disposable helicopter. It runs without much maintenance to the 2000 or 2200 hour mark or ten years whichever comes first. Then you need to send it back to the factory or authorized center for complete overhaul.
This works well in remote places am I told. Not so good for an individual like me because I would use up the ten years with only about 600hours flight time.

Each person or company would have a different need as stated by B Sousa.
There is hardly any good, low cost, fully depreciated designs to choose from for a private owner.
I have owned 7 fixed wings and sold them for more than I paid. They appreciated.
That will be hard to do with a helo I think. But the idea of buying a fully depreciated unit does make sense. But the cost to maintain and restore is high.

[SHortshaft]

I am not sure that the statement in the first line of the thread (…the biggest single cost of heli operation is depreciation') is necessarily correct. Insurance and staff could well be the biggest single cost; it depends on where you operate and who you employ.

Depreciation can be used in many ways - depends how it best benefits your organization.

Examples:

Buy a machine at say USD 1 million and depreciate it to zero over 3 years (USD 333,333 per year). Then sell it for USD 700,000 and you have a USD 700,000 windfall profit. Depends on the corporate and tax environment you live and work in.

Also consider that Bell 206 with 26,000 hours, which was probably manufactured in the mid 70s. Today it is has almost the same earning power as a machine half its age but is worth maybe twice as much as it cost in dollar terms.

Depends on how your accountant manages the figures as to how much depreciation that represents.

[Disguise Delimit]

And data plates don't mean so much anyway. Eurocopter has a sneaky way of getting machines into the market.

Whenever a data plate is created, a tax must be paid. So, they buy write-off wrecks, remove the data plate, build a new helicopter, as long as it is a clone of the original, and a certain number of components came from the original machine. This almost-completely-new machine doesn't attract the tax. It can be sold much cheaper.

I knew an owner who picked up a B3 like this, the only original bits were the engine and one blade, and they had only 100 hours on them anyway. Saved hundreds of thousands on the new price.

[HeliMark]

Some of the bigger U.S. County/City government's do not want to deal with the additional maintenance of their helicopters when they get in the 10-15K hour area. So when they buy, they structure the loan they get with that in mind.

Most citizens of the County/City do not want an "old" helicopter above them. They want a "newer" one. It is the same as what the airlines are now going through, in a way.

L.A. County sold theirs as the 520's were, well 520's. The 600's were even worse. Not to mention product support for them. And they needed a bigger helicopter. They outgrew the 500's with the equipment they had onboard.

[212man]

"I'm amazed at the idea of a 206 with 26000 hours! I had wondered whether there was a design life with the aluminium - this is a big factor with pressurised airframes."

We have serveral aircraft with over 30,000 hours on them; B 212s and the highest hour AS 332 in the world.

I tend to agree with much of the above but also bear in mind that once past a certain age you will start to get structural problems from fatigue and/or corrosion. Initialy this will be relatively simple to repair but eventually may start to become a real 'dockyard job'. For example, cracked 'I' beams on a 212. These sorts of problems can be very expensive to sort out, and will require very specialist skills and a lot of downtime.

Other componants may not be lifed, but be 'on condition'. Chances are that as you reach the high hours/usage regime these items will need to changing too, as their condition will have fallen below spec.

[Graviman]

"...R-22 as a kind of disposable helicopter... 2000 or 2200 hour ... complete overhaul."

Interesting. So this is powertrain rebuild time. Any idea what the overhaul involves?

"Insurance and staff could well be the biggest single cost..."

I had wondered about this. My view is if the machine is very easy to fly, and has few mechanical parts each of which is very reliable, repair cost/frequency goes down. This pushes down insurance through competition.

"...picked up a B3 like this, the only original bits were the engine and one blade, and they had only 100 hours on them anyway."

Data plates: Interesting way to get new stuff out there. Definately reinforces my view about the importance of spare parts business though.

"...additional maintenance of their helicopters when they get in the 10-15K hour area"

So is this a generally regarded figure for heli life then?

"... past a certain age you will start to get structural problems from fatigue and/or corrosion."

I take it that again 10k - 15k hours is an accepted figure for lifespan?

"...'on condition'... items will need to changing too, as their condition will have fallen below spec."

Interesting. I am curious what (say) Bell themselves regards as the design life of a new heli.

Mart

[Flingwing207]

Basically when the factory overhauls the R22, the dismantle it down to the bare airframe. They replace or rebuild every moving part, and inspect EVERY part. It is only half a joke to say that you send them your helicopter, they send you a new one with the original gas caps (new gasket of course).

You can also have the overhaul done by an authorized service center - it can cost considerably less, but results may vary. The owner of our leaseback R22 is finding out the hard way that the $12,000 he saved by not doing the factory overhaul was actually only a deferred cost. It turns out that the shop doing his overhaul didn't exactly do it to Robinson specs. The ensuing repairs and down-time have pretty much wiped out the savings.

The issue with the overhaul which Robinson fails to mention is the TIME it takes. You have to ferry or ship the aircraft to Torrence, then they overhaul it, then you have to get it home. In some cases this can take more than three months - if your aircraft is meant to be generating revenue, this is a BIG expense. For instance, this is why (for a commercial operator) the 300CBi is as cheap or cheaper to own/operate over the long term (think 2500+ hours), even though it requires more maintenance...

The ideal candidate for an R22 is a private owner who flies the ship about 183.33 hours a year...

[Gomer Pylot]

It seems obvious to me that you should always weigh the costs of an overhaul against the value of the aircraft after it is finished, and against the cost of a new aircraft, just as you would with an automobile or a computer or anything else. There is no legal requirement to junk an aircraft, but there may be economic reasons to do so. Many light twin airplanes are junked because the cost of new engines is more than what the airplane is worth with new engines. Economics always play a role.

Edit: typos.

[B Sousa]

ALso when considering Insurance and the R-22. Most of them are used in a training mode, therefore they get a lot of "tough" hours and their increased exposure to accidents runs up the insurance tab. Training hours also lessen the lifespan just by the nature of the flying done.

[Aesir]

I really hate it when customers ask me about the age of the aircraft.. its difficult to say, I usually answer.

The most important and expensive components are usually no older than about 5 years although the airframe, which has little importance to the reliability of the aircraft, could be 30 years old.

[Graviman]

"factory overhauls the R22, the dismantle it down to the bare airframe..."

Interesting, design life af about 2200 hours. I make that about £55 an hour, just from lifecycle - sheesh! Engine the limit, or gearbox?

"There is no legal requirement to junk an aircraft, but there may be economic reasons to do so."

That does show promise though. Design a low cost aircraft for very low maintenance, and you have a winner. Especially if you can supply complete kits for local overhaul.

"... R-22 ... training mode ... "tough" hours ... accidents ... insurance."

So maybe design for very easy to fly (we're thinking augmented here), and designed for extreme manouvres? At worse JAR introduces "augmented" license...

"...important ... components ... 5 years although the airframe ... could be 30 years old."

Interesting, and definately sends the message about kits to overhaul or upgrade.

Mart

[Gaseous]

There are lots of scrapped Enstroms about as a lot were imported to the UK in the 70s and 80s. What happened is that as they aged and depreciated the cost of maintenance increased. Eventually they ended up in the hands of people who wanted/could only afford a cheap helicopter. This usually coincided with a major overhaul becoming due at great cost. The owner could not justify the cost so the aircraft was abandoned or scrapped even though overhaul was possible.

The problem was that the people with the money needed to overhaul a clapped out Enstrom would not be seen dead in an old Enstrom.

What is happening now is that the value in these abandoned airframes is being seen and a few are being resurrected.

This is what happened to mine. The airframe is 30 years old and it was rebuilt from almost dead 3 years ago. It now has 1000+ hours left on all major components and will probably still be flying in another 30 years. Quite a few Ppruners have flown in it and all seem genuinely impressed.

The original data plate was lost but the log books existed. There was enough information on the remaining components for the CAA to identify it and allow a new data plate to be made by Enstrom.
Moral. Dont break it up when its had it. It could have a new lease of life later.

Edited cos I can't type!

[Vfrpilotpb]

I agree with Gaseous, his Enstrom is near perfect looks the biz and flys really well, and is almost vibration free,

so age is something thats in the mind of the beholder,

(thats what I also tell the lady's):ok:

Vfr

[Dave_Jackson]

Today, one of Columbia's ex-NYA 107-IIs is believed to be the highest-time helicopter in the world. Does this mean that twin-rotors is the best? :D

[2beers]

Well, some things go soft with age... :\
There was an EMS AS365N1 here in Sweden with lots of hours on it, previously oil-work, that had gone soft in the main cabin structure, which made the doors very difficult to close in flight. On ground with weight on wheels, no problem. In the air with everything hanging in the main rotor, doors jammed if opened.

But it did it's job until replaced and I think it's in France being rebuilt now.

/2beers

[Graviman]

"Enstrom ... airframe is 30 years old ... 1000+ hours left on all major components ... flying in another 30 years."

Wow.

"... ex-NYA 107-IIs ... highest-time helicopter in the world."

Double wow.

"Does this mean that twin-rotors is the best?"

Must admit Dave, i'm hoping you're taking away the lesson that a good design is simple rugged and extremely reliable....

"...EMS AS365N1 ... doors very difficult to close in flight. "

As a structural engineer, this scared the hell outa me! I've been known to introduce "permanent set" into airframes myself, but i really don't like the idea of that sort of flexibility. Generally that means that fatigue cracks are ganging up, and that a serious failure is imminent...

Does make me wonder if some machines are operated beyond a safe service life, although i always find the idea of finite design life abhorent.

Mart

[Gaseous]

Graviman,

Aircraft don't have to be old to get cockpit distortion. When I was a student hurrying back before dark from a solo navex I noticed that the doors gaped 1/2 an inch at the top. It scared me to death at the time. When I landed the gaps disappeared. The aircraft, an R22 was 4 years old. Sometimes when I landed I couldn't open the doors easily at all.
I suspect that this all occured within the elastic limits of the GRP and was not metal bending so not really too alarming.

[yoobeedo]

Excluding the Brit Enstroms.

Has anyone ever seen a civilian helicopter retired for reasons other than accident damage. What happened to it? (ie. heli graveyard.)