Maintenance for different planes

[JSeward]

Hello everyone,

Starting to look into the used aircraft market and wanted some FACTS about certain types of planes and UNEXPECTED maintenance. Naturally with some from these list you would expect to pay more maintenance due to complex systems but I am talking about sort of unexpected maintenance.

What is the unexpected maintenance like on the following aircraft:
-Cessna 414 and 340
-Bonanza A36 and V35
-Cessna 182 fixed gear
-Piper Comanche and Twin Comanche

Help is appreciated, would love to hear from LAME's and operators, thanks.

[Horatio Leafblower]

What an odd question.

I have found that what is "unexpected" depends greatly on the knowledge and experience of the operator and the engineering company you are buddied up with.

The other variable is the dilligence, or otherwise, of the people previously operating and/or maintaining the aircraft.

We bought 2 aircraft from an RPT operator 18 months ago and for reasons related to the factors described above, our learning process has been long and, on occasion, expensive.

It has also meant that what is "unexpected" is now a very small range of possibilities, because frankly most of what previously was "unexpected" has now happened or been narrowly averted and is "unexpected" no longer.

There is still the possibility of a vast number of things that could unexpectedly go wrong... but I am not expecting them to. :bored:

...as one would expect. :uhoh:

[JSeward]

I suppose how do they fare against each other maintenance wise?

[morno]

I'm a bit confused. If it's unexpected, then how would you know?

[Hempy]

As the worlds oldest Flt Lt said to me one day "we call them aircraft in this country boy, you shave wood with a 'plane'..

[Dash8capt]

I think a better way to put this is: what are they key "big ticket" maintenance items on the aircraft listed below?

[Mach E Avelli]

Possible UNEXPECTED consequences of owning any of the above aircraft would be that whatever you have been told they cost to operate, double it.
Whatever you have been told about their charter potential, forget it.

As they are all old airframes, to be EXPECTED would be constant attention to corrosion, cracks, fuel leaks, cylinders, crank-cases, electrics............

[Old Akro]

1. SIDS & Continentals
2. Wing spar & Continentals
3. Firewall / landing damage & Continental
4. Labour intensive maintenance & hard to get parts.

[Howard Hughes]

As the worlds oldest Flt Lt said to me one day "we call them aircraft in this country boy, you shave wood with a 'plane'..
He didn't own a dictionary then? ;)

[Horatio Leafblower]

I think Old Akro and MachEAvelli have it pretty much covered.

[Hempy]

Howard, I don't know many knucks that can read, let alone own a dictionary...

[RatsoreA]

1. SIDS & Continentals
2. Wing spar & Continentals
3. Firewall / landing damage & Continental
4. Labour intensive maintenance & hard to get parts.

Old Akro -

What have you got against poor old Conti's!?

Mine are both going great guns! Knock on wood! :E

[FokkerInYour12]

Make sure you prepare a solid business plan for owning an aircraft (and you haven't got competition willing to lose value in their aircraft to get a contract).

Most of the Jandakot operators are quite happy to operate their aircraft at figures under _true_ cost (cost of money, budget for engine overhauls/repaint/instrument replacement, internals replacement, eventual aircraft replacement, unscheduled maintenance etc.). Recently I spent almost as much money on "diagnosing" a Carby problem as purchasing an overhauled unit.

[Old Akro]

What have you got against poor old Conti's!?

Basically, cylinder reliability / life. And they do a worse job of fuel mixture distribution than Lycoming.

The unexpected maintenance will be just that - unexpected. The gottcha's increase with aircraft complexity. Could be gear doors, hoses, control cables, corrosion, cylinder compression, turbo's, fuel tank bladders, crankcase cracks, and many more. But there will be a gottcha.

The Bo guys will howl, but I think old Bonanza's & spar corrosion is just like playing Russian roulette.

There is no common mission profile across the aircraft you list in terms of speed or carrying capacity. How did you get that list? Its also probably missing a Lance / Saratoga. I'd rather have one of those for nearly any mission rather than a C182.

[Arnold E]

Its also probably missing a Lance / Saratoga. I'd rather have one of those for nearly any mission rather than a C182.

Your kidding right? have I missed something, is it April 1st again?:)

[RatsoreA]

Your kidding right? have I missed something, is it April 1st again?

Really?

I'd also take a 32 over any 182!

But as for TCM... GAMI injectors help, and not every cylinder and piston is like chucking a sausage down a hall... I have fantastic compressions across 12 cylinders. I have heard though that some lots are fine and other lots may as well be made of tissues. Can't remember where I read that... Luck, I guess?

[gassed budgie]

-Cessna 414 and 340
-Bonanza A36 and V35
-Cessna 182 fixed gear
-Piper Comanche and Twin Comanche

= Cessna 210N/R. Has issues like the rest of them, but will cover almost anything that can be done in the aircraft listed above. Of the GA aircraft produced over the last fifty years, the 210 probably ranks in the top three.

[dubbleyew eight]

Recently I spent almost as much money on "diagnosing" a Carby problem as purchasing an overhauled unit.

know that one from the inside. as a result I have a near new marvel schebler sitting on the shelf and know how to do a carby overhaul.

engine showed deteriorating grunt over a protracted time so have 4 new cylinders sitting beside me. turned out to be the magnetos going out of tune.

owning an aeroplane isnt for the feint hearted but I wouldn't miss it for the world. :ok:

[Old Akro]

Your kidding right?

Compared with the 182 R model and the PA32R that I last flew:
The Lance has 20 kts extra speed for the same fuel flow
The Lance has a proper autopilot instead of the Cessna cr#p
The Lance has a nearly bullet proof Lyc instead of a Conti o-470 which needs cylinders every 900 hours.
The lance has nearly 6 inches more width, so you don't rub shoulders with your co-pilot.
The lance has room between the seats for Thermos & sandwiches
The lance has baggage space that is 10 times better than the C182 and the front locker can be used for cofg trimming which can get another 3-4 kts cruise speed.
The lyc in the Lance can run lean of peak (sanctioned by Lycoming in the POH).
The lance can fit 6 and the rear pax don't get claustrophobic.
The Lance carries more fuel / has greater range.
The Lance is quieter

About the only area the C182 is better is that it has a wing you can stand under in the rain and you can taxy over fenceposts.

[gassed budgie]

Compared with the 182 R model and the PA32R that I last flew:
The Lance has 20 kts extra speed for the same fuel flow
The Lance has a proper autopilot instead of the Cessna cr#p
The Lance has a nearly bullet proof Lyc instead of a Conti o-470 which needs cylinders every 900 hours.
The lance has nearly 6 inches more width, so you don't rub shoulders with your co-pilot.
The lance has room between the seats for Thermos & sandwiches
The lance has baggage space that is 10 times better than the C182 and the front locker can be used for cofg trimming which can get another 3-4 kts cruise speed.
The lyc in the Lance can run lean of peak (sanctioned by Lycoming in the POH).
The lance can fit 6 and the rear pax don't get claustrophobic.
The Lance carries more fuel / has greater range.
The Lance is quieter

All correct Akro. The Lance is a great aeroplane, very much underrated these days. The last one I flew had a few minor mods done to it and I was more than a little surprised to find that it wound itself out to 165ktas in the cruise, albeit with a light load.
A comment on the Cessna autopilots though. The early ARC radios and A/P's that came as standard during the mid 70's in your 172, 182 etc. we're indeed rubbish. However, the later 300 series and especially the 400 series available in the early 80's were, for their day actually not to bad.
The 400B autopilot was and still is (if it's been maintained) a great autopilot and very much suited to the 210 for example. It's not uncommon to see a 210 with a panel full of new glass with the thirty year old 400B lurking at the bottom of the stack.

About the only area the C182 is better is that it has a wing you can stand under in the rain and you can taxy over fenceposts

....and you get to sit in the shade in the middle of the afternoon on a hot sunny, summers day. But taxy?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

The lance has baggage space that is 10 times better than the C182 and the front locker can be used for cofg trimming which can get another 3-4 kts cruise speed.

Mostly there, but a rear CofG means less downforce required from the elevator (or stabilator) to maintain an attitude which means less overall lift required to counter the weight and (reduced) tail downforce. Less effective weight = faster a/c. Also contributes to lower stall speed (insignificant, I know).

Still, agreed, does have overall much beter baggage capacity and flexibility for maintaining CofG within limits. From memory though, you did have to try pretty hard to get it out of CofG limits.

Flying the locals to Palm Is., I found the front locker particularly useful for stashing the hot food (read as KFC).:}

[JSeward]

Possibly looking at a Twin Comanche, any operators or owners here? What is maintenance and parts like?

Thank you

[Old Akro]

Twin Comanche is a great aeroplane. Built with good workmanship and gets outstanding speed.

The buts are;
1. All but the very last ones came with fruit salad instrument panels, which I think are unacceptable for IFR
2. They were designed and built in a different era when labour was cheap. They are a much higher labour for maintenance aircraft than (say) a Seneca.
3. Parts will have a higher degree of difficulty than a Seminole or Seneca (both of which are still made). I'm sure parts are still available, and the International Comanche society will help. But like antique cars, you will need to develop a network of places to get parts.
4. You'll probably be better off if you get involved in the Comanche society.

I think owning a Comanche would be like owning a classic car. You will need a good relationship with a good LAME (who maintains a number of other Comanches) and you will need to be more involved in the maintenance and have a working list of parts to repair / renovate / upgrade. Every 100 hourly will probably involve some additional project.

The following generation of aircraft (Lance / Saratoga / Seminole / Seneca) I think you can still get away with tossing the keys to the LAME and leaving it to them.

If you want a classic aircraft to own that you get involved in and (probably) work to improve, I think the Twin Comanche would be a rewarding aircraft. Otherwise, I'd look to a Seneca II or III.

[RatsoreA]

Good advice Akro (All the advice you gave me for the 34 worked a treat!)

I am in the same situation you were in, only 12-18 months ahead.

Through a convoluted set of circumstances, I went the Seneca III, and couldn't be happier. It has turned around and bit me in the wallet a few times, but nothing major, and I haven't had to do the same thing twice. Parts are plentiful and most are reasonable (some are not!).

Having restored a rare car, and if getting a 'classic' airplane like the TC up to speed and on top of maintenance is anything like that experience, I'd rather cut my own arms off with an industrial power saw than ever do that again!

Every airplane has its little foibles, and some makes have the same sort of issues, but doing careful research beforehand, and spending some money to upgrade things like panels will pay you back in less down time and less maintenance liability. And what ever you get, ditch the vacuum system and replace it with modern digital devices. Biggest failure point on any airplane, IMHO!!

If you want to know more about the experience, PM me.