Maintenance for different planes
 

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.

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:

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

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

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'..

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

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............

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

He didn't own a dictionary then? ;)

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

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

Old Akro -

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

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

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.

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.

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?

= 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.

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:

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.

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.

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