Typical Running Costs?

[Flying_Anorak]

Hi,

Me again!

Whilst I realise that this is a bit of a 'length of string' question, can anyone please give me an idea of what the typical annual running costs of an EASA CoA aircraft (such as a Robin DR400) are?

I've owned a glider for a number of years so I'm realistic about the nature of these costs, but I've no experience of having a fan on the front to gauge how much these will increase by. For example:-

Insurance: Myself and possible syndicate members are low hour (< 20hrs) NPPL holders but have 500+ hrs in gliders. My glider insurance is currently circa £700 per year so for an aircraft with a value of circa £30K, would £1500 pa be a 'typical' estimate?

CoA / 50 hr Checks: I've heard figures of between £500 and £5000 mentioned, assuming nothing major breaks, any idea of the 'typical' costs please?

Hangarage: I've been told between £600 pa for a piece of grass and £1500 for a hangar space - is this 'typical'?

Anything else I've missed? Obviously there are consumables and a possible engine fund to consider, but I'm trying to establish a realistic idea of how much the minimum running costs would be if we flew for between 50 & 100 hrs per year in a smallish syndicate with something like a Robin or equivalent.

Thanks in anticipation as always.

Cheers,

FA

[Stampe]

I,ve run a DR400/180 past five years in the south east sole ownership.Budget on £20k pa. for 100 hours flying.
£7k pa maintenance
£3k pa hangarage/base landings
£1.3k pa insurance based on 50k hull value no claims record 19000hrs total pilot time.
Fuel 35l per hour=3500lts= approx.£7k pa.

Any less than 100 hrs pa. I don,t think sole ownership would be viable.I,ve been very happy with my maintenance supplier they are not the cheapest but they do know what they are doing.
Best regards Stampe

[Rod1]

Stampe is almost Identical to my estimate but I may have gone for £5000 on the maintenance (based on DR400/160 experience from a few years ago).

Rod1

[flybymike]

It depends were you are based. Hangarage at somewhere silly like Leeds will cost at least £8kpa and landings at least £25.

[peterh337]

These figures are going to vary substantially according to how old/new the plane is, and how much you get involved in who does what on it, whether you do your own 50hr checks, etc.

Also hangarage varies a lot according to the part of the UK. In the SE it can be £7k/year easily.

I pay ~£2.5k for insurance on a 2002 TB20, CPL/IR with 1500hrs. Annual £2.7k, do my own servicing in between.

Any less than 100 hrs pa. I don,t think sole ownership would be viable

That depends very much on how much you value sole ownership :) The benefits are massive. To people who "go places" and can afford it, it is priceless. Those who can't afford it obviously can't do it!

If you fly much below say 50hrs/year then you may have issues with engine corrosion, unless you take care to fly very regularly.

[peterh337]

Silvaire is accurate but he lives in a land of freedom and low land costs :)

You can get a hangar in the UK for a hundred quid a year, but nobody would want to live where it would be :)

A lot of things are tied to each other. If you can get a hangar in which "owner maintenance" is permitted then you can dramatically reduce your maintenance costs (if N-reg) by employing a freelance A&P/IA. You can get a £3k Annual done for £1k.

That, of course, is why almost no hangar owner in the UK, located at an airfield where there is a MO present, permits stuff to be done in their hangar :E

I am currently watching the MSLP charts to see when I can get my next service done. 2 pairs of underpants, 2 sweaters, a wooly hat and gloves :) One of the more depressing aspects of ownership and trying to do the very best possible job.

[4535jacks]

For my permit aircraft I pay £850 pa insurance (inc hull cover), £1150 pa for hangarage and £500pa on maintainence and inspections. So my fixed annual overheads are £2500. I then pay £30ph for fuel. I don't have an engine fund as I have a spare engine which I am slowly rebuilding.

At the moment I fly 70 hous pa which works out at £65 per hour. An upcoming change in work commitments will mean I'll easy be able to fly 100hours pa, reducing my costs to £55 per hour and if I can manage 150 hours p.a (I will be hours building for a CPL) it will cost me £47 per hour!

My aircraft is a Jodel 150a Mascaret, 2 seater.

Buy the right aircraft and you shouldn't lose any money on the capital when it comes to resell. It is a buyers market, grab yourself a bargain and sit on it until someone is willing to pay you good money to part with it and use the profits subsidise your flying.

The best thing about single ownership is availability, being able to turn up at the airfield and going flying whenever there is the slightest gap in the weather and being able to take the aircraft away touring for as long as you want!

[Pilot.Lyons]

Wow id love to be in the postion to pay even half those costs.... In fact i dont even earn £20k let alone have it spare to spend on my own plane! :(

We can dream..... At least i made it halfway and rent :)

Good luck to those of you who can afford it you are obviously hard working and deserving... Or lottery winners lol

[Flying_Anorak]

Thanks all for your replies thus far, very helpful and enlightening, and Pilot Lyon, whilst I do earn more than the threshold you mention, the share v rent dilemma is what its all about for me!

I must admit, compared to the gliding world, I am surprised at the running costs before you even get to fly. Actually buying the aircraft is one of the lowest cost items it seems. I need to find somewhere with nice aircraft (other than PA28s) that I can hire cheaply I think!

Cheers,

'FA'

[john ball]

By far the cheapest way is to buy a LAA aircraft, then you can save huge amounts by doing the maintenance yourself, if you are mechanically minded. The absolute cheapest would be a Jodel D9 or Taylor Mono or such like and just 2-3 gallons per hour. Low insurance as no passenger and aircraft low at only £6-8,000. Proper aeroplane with 70-80kts cruise and better than a microlight, as an of those two will never depreciate in value.

[rateone]

Unless you want the IFR capability find a Permit aircraft, a friendly engineer and a small grass strip.

I have a motor glider which is an EASA aircraft...sigh. Insurance is £1200 and I do OK with hangarage as the wings fold. The positive is I can fly at 100kts at less than 15 ltrs/hr and if it's thermic I can fly for "free".:)

Maintenance is the biggest headache. I can do my own 50 hrs (which is usually a 6 monthly) but need Part M shop for the annual. This year the ARC was £3000, last year it was £6000! The prop needs servicing next year.....:{


Rateone

[J.A.F.O.]

The answer seems to be: "Whatever you can afford, plus ten percent." :}

[robin]

Unless you want the IFR capability find a Permit aircraft, a friendly engineer and a small grass strip.


Not sure I'd agree with you completely. I'd rather go with the the aircraft I want than drive one that didn't fit my 'mission profile'.

The Permit fleet divides into older types and home-builds (generally affordable, but limited) and the newer generation (big money and better performance). The majority are still 2-seaters.

Apart from the hassle factor of EASA Part M, I am generally happy to stay on CofA. I note that Permit owners are not immune from the hassle factor themselves, so you make the choice that suits you

[peterh337]

100% right.

If you fail to fulfill all or most of the mission profile, you will be for ever miserable :)

And money is nothing to do with that. I know of pilots who went all the way up the food chain, to a turboprop, and then suddenly chucked it all in for good because they got fed up with the hassle of the ownership relative to what they were getting out of it.

[Pilot.Lyons]

Maybe buy a small share ie 1/4 and then you will have a much larger budget to fly with and the costs of repair/upkeep would be split leaving more to fly with

[Rod1]

“If you fail to fulfill all or most of the mission profile, you will be for ever miserable”

True to a point but it is possible to fulfil the mission profile with a split plan. When I upgraded to the MCR it was a better fit for my long distance VFR touring than the AA5b except for taking the family flying. My original plan was to use some of the £10,000 a year I was saving on running costs to hire a local DR400. In the event the family preferred to fly one at a time in the MCR and get involved in the flight and they fly more now than they did when I had the 4 seater. The result; in 7 years I have never hired a 4 seater and now probably never will.

Rod1

[Pace]

The old saying if it flies floats or F--ks rent dont buy holds true unless you hit the magic 300 hrs pa?
20K for 100 hrs is still £200 per hour.
If its yours its yours which as stated can bring incalculable benefits but do add incalculable down sides too as well as huge costs if things go badly wrong as happened in my group of 4 when one of the four decided to crash it not once but twice. We got a fraction of the cost back on sale with the accident history and loads of down time due accidents.
Unless you are a high user renting will usually be cheaper and at the end of the day you walk away!
But still dream of a field a small hanger and a Husky waiting to be fired up after breakfast on a pink summer morning ;)
Better option get someone to pay you to fly their dream machine.

Pace

[peterh337]

It will nearly always be cheaper to get an airline flight :)

So any "costs" debate will always be intractable.

If you can easily afford sole ownership, go for it (unless you will be flying too little for the engine).

If you cannot afford sole ownership, then you can't do it :)

In between the two, you get different positions where people try to argue that £200/hr or whatever is too much and renting would be cheaper, etc. But you cannot go away anywhere and rent. Look at the trips I do... I could not do most of them if renting, due to the time span. These long trips represent only a fraction of my TT but they give me a huge benefit; without them I would just be messing around in the UK and most of those flights can be driven in less time.

It is important to be able to easily afford one's flying. If the affordability is marginal then you can be subject to family pressures bordering on resentment (depending on how good your relationship etc is).

Anyway, I gather than the SR22 "hour block purchase, zero equity" setups charge about £250/hr, which is a lot. Unsuprising, because they let just about anybody with a PPL to fly it, and they are set up to make a profit for the operator.

[Pace]

Peter

If you are looking at the TBM700 in the future also look at the Eclipse! After its chequered start up history and problems it is turning into a good machine which will get you over the weather and will equal the TBM on running costs with two engined safety.
Under Sikorski 3 to 5 years down the line second hand it should be a strong competitor to the TBM.

The Eclipse Jet | The Most Efficient Light Jet on the Planet | The Eclipse 550 Twin-Engine Jet (http://www.eclipse.aero/550.php)

http://www.eclipse.aero/images/gallery/te_3.jpg

If it looks right it flies right :ok:

Pace

[peterh337]

Unfortunately a (used) TBM is a little too pricey for me, especially in terms of ongoing costs (everything rockets; hangarage goes from £6k to £20k and that is just the start) but also it would serve about 1/3 of my mission profile (extremely well, admittedly) so like other owners I would have to keep the TB20.

The Eclipse looks very nice; I agree.

But really I am staying put. So easy to get into a "bridge too far" position in this game.

We've just had a super 2 weeks in Croatia and Greece with the TB20. Shoreham to Brac nonstop, landing with 22 USG. Brac to Samos and burning just half the tanks. Samos to Zagreb, with a landing at Alexandropolis (ferry to Samothraki) and landing with 20 USG. Zagreb to Shoreham against 30-40kt headwinds, FL160 across the Alps, landing with 19.1 USG. It's pretty good really!

[Pace]

Peter

Its nice to find a man who knows where he wants to be and is happy where he is at ;)

I want to fly everything :E

Whats your secret ?

Pace

[hval]

I am curious; what would be considered the minimum number of hours that an aircraft should be flown for piston engines, turbo props and jet, before corrosion becomes an potential issue?

I know "it depends" is the sensible answer, due to any number of factors, but there must be an average. For instance would 100 hrs PA be sufficient?

[Fuji Abound]

Anyway, I gather than the SR22 "hour block purchase, zero equity" setups charge about £250/hr, which is a lot. Unsuprising, because they let just about anybody with a PPL to fly it, and they are set up to make a profit for the operator. Just to set the record straight, I know there are various outfits doing this and I certainly don't know how they all work. However of those I know of, they definitely will not let just about anyone with a PPL fly. As has been discussed before if nothing else insurance on SR22s is not the easiest of markets and these setups are no less exempt. Moreover of the outfits of which I am aware regardless of insurance they are pretty selective and do their own reasonably extensive checks on the pilots, hence their very good safety record.

I know of cases where pilots have been turned down and told to get some more experience and others where they have had umpteen conversion / training flights before they are considered up to speed and definitely not for money making reasons either.

To be fair for any pilot with reasonable skills and perhaps a little time in a higher performance aircraft it is a straight forward conversion and no reason why they shouldn't make a quick transition and be safe to go, but in my experience at least, pilots are certainly not being given the reigns unless they are good enough.

I would agree as with any group profit can be a poor bed fellow when it comes to safety, but it is also worth making the point that many groups (not just Cirrus groups) are operated for the members by the members and while in some cases the arrangement is more complicated because the Group also sells hours it is unusual for the members to allow their aircraft to be used badly and they are not usually in the Group to make a profit but to cover their standing costs.

I now we are all cynical in this game and there are some poor groups and poor experiences that can be recounted about hour builders but actually with care most of these problems can be avoided.

[OverRun]

Pace- I'm still laughing - what a priceless quote:
The old saying if it flies floats or F--ks rent dont buy holds true

[Pace]

I am curious; what would be considered the minimum number of hours that an aircraft should be flown for piston engines, turbo props and jet, before corrosion becomes an potential issue?

Hval

Corrosion as such is probably not the issue unless the aircraft is parked outside near the sea.
Damp is a problem with sensitive avionics and other systems so an hourly number is probably not accurate.
You could fly your 100 hours in two months and park up for the remaining 10 months and still get problems so its more regulatory of use, is the aircraft parked outside? Is it in a dry Hanger.
Aircraft do not like being parked up and not used and warmed through.
Regarding the different types Jets can be 30 to 40 years old! What stops them is not usually corrosion but engine life and maintenance bills on old systems and avionics or expensive new requirements.
When you consider a small jet engine has a life of 4800 hrs and costs $4-500,000 to rebuild the maths does not work out on old airframes and they really become scrap value.

[Fuji Abound]

Corrosion as such is probably not the issue unless the aircraft is parked outside near the sea.

Pace - I am not sure I would agree. I know a great deal more about auto engines than aero engines (well in terms of what they look like inside). It is surprising how quickly surface corrosion sets in if the engine isnt used and the damage this can cause. Personally I would want to see an engine used at least once a month, and I dont mean just a ground start which potentially would do more harm than good.

[peterh337]

I am curious; what would be considered the minimum number of hours that an aircraft should be flown for piston engines, turbo props and jet, before corrosion becomes an potential issue?

It think it is generally believed that a piston engine of the old style (Lyco/Conti) should be run every 2 weeks or so, and for not less than about 1 hour to make sure the water condensed into the oil gets boiled off.

In a dry climate, longer periods ought to be fine.

I also think it depends on the oil. Also the Camguard additive really does work very well (for both wear reduction and helping the oil stick between engine runs) and this is supported by good data.

Jet engines are not my area, but I think it's fair to say that the high strength / high temperature alloys used in them which are exposed to the outside tend to be pretty resistant to corrosion, and together with pressurised (sealed) hulls you get a better ability to park outdoors. And indeed most jets live outdoors all their life.

Avionics life versus outdoors etc is something where opinions differ a lot. Different people have different experiences. I don't like it when I get in and see the panel covered with condensation. Look inside any avionics repair shop and you see that corrosion is very obviously the biggest killer of avionics. So for the past few years I have kept a 0.5kg bag of silica gel in there, changed every time I fly (~ once a week). It is baked at +120C overnight to recycle it and I have about a dozen of the bags (~£5 each). Keeps everything dry and smelling fresh and like new :)

[englishal]

That, of course, is why almost no hangar owner in the UK, located at an airfield where there is a MO present, permits stuff to be done in their hangar
Peter, you need to get out more ;) You wouldn't believe what goes on in some of our hangars and no one complains :) Plus having a friendly MO on field is great if you need to borrow tools of ask questions.

The other option is to drop your plane off with an IA who has his own hangar and can fly you home again afterwards, and maybe help him out a bit (if you want). There are some very reasonable chaps out there.

One big advantage with Non-EASA is the fact that the freelance chap will often work till 9pm to get your aeroplane ready in 3 days and may not be VAT registered which makes at least 20% difference to the bill. I forget our last annual bill but after being G registered for 5 years previously, lets just say we were nicely surprised (and the annual took about a 10th of the time).

[Rod1]

The recommendation for the Rotax 91X is to run them at least every 4 weeks. Ground run up to 50degC Oil temp then a std run up is OK if it is not possible to fly – but flying and getting temp up to 90degC min is best. Abandoning them for more than 3 months in the damp over winter is not good!

Rod1

[Flying_Anorak]

Just as an update, I've been playing with an Excel spreadsheet comparing typical hire costs with various shares that are currently for sale.

If anyone wants a copy then PM me your address and I'll forward it over, but it seems that for most 'typical' GA aircraft the hire v buy cross over point is circa 25 hrs per annum with no appreciable saving in costs in ownership unless you do more than that.

So it looks like the 'fly, float & F...' rule holds true, although willing to be proved wrong in all!

:O

FA

[Pace]

I,ve run a DR400/180 past five years in the south east sole ownership.Budget on £20k pa. for 100 hours flying.
£7k pa maintenance
£3k pa hangarage/base landings
£1.3k pa insurance based on 50k hull value no claims record 19000hrs total pilot time.
Fuel 35l per hour=3500lts= approx.£7k pa.

Any less than 100 hrs pa. I don,t think sole ownership would be viable.I,ve been very happy with my maintenance supplier they are not the cheapest but they do know what they are doing.
Best regards Stampe

Did you mean 25 hrs or 250 hrs which seems more realistic
The above figures with 100 hrs use would equate to £200 per hour still expensive for a DR400 RENTAL!

25 hrs would put his hourly costs much higher again! I know in a jet the break even point is around 250 -300 hrs per anum compared to rental.
I would not think a typical SEP GA would be much less than 200 hrs

Pace

[Flying_Anorak]

Hi Pace,

No I did mean 25hrs.

Just to explain, the basis for my analysis is what it will cost ME to do 25 hrs per year in various aircraft types in which shares are currently available. I've excluded the capital investment (share) costs to compare the costs of hiring v sharing (inclusive of annual and monthly syndicate costs).

For example:

20hrs in a typical hire PA28: £2825
ditto in a syndicated PA28: £2720
ditto in a syndicated DR400: £3224
ditto in a syndicated Europa: £1900
ditto in a syndicated G109B: £1800

I've tried posting the graph here but it wont let me!

Cheers,

FA

[hval]

Pace, FujiAbound, Peterh337 & Rod1,

Thank you for your responses.

I had expected a weekly/ fortnightly regime for engine runs.