Typical Running Costs?

[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

Whats your secret ?

Pace

[hval]

I am curious

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 hangar.
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!



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.