206 BIII Operating Costs in the Uk
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell and Agusta Bell 206
206 jock
Right, got that. This is absolute b*****ks, if you will forgive the language. I can understand the CAA being politically 'diplomatic', but this is nonsense. The orginal reason for no fitment of Agusta parts to Bell machines was a protectionist policy for the domestic market when the aircraft was first certificated by FAA. You and I might not agree with the principle but we could (just) understand the situation. I need to get out some historical docs all archived at present. 2 points that are absolute; Agusta published an Info letter (1980s) which correlated the build of their s/n ships to Bell ones (since at the time the A/B manuals were a photocopy of the Bell manuals including the IPC). This so that the correct dash number components could be checked for compliance with the Type Cert at C of A issue/renewal. Secondly, the containers with Bell pick-ticket parts that were shipped to Agusta are genuine Bell parts, from Bell inventory. I could be wrong but as far as I am aware Agusta don't make any dynamic parts for the 206 any more, and probably the airframe bits would be SOO (special order only). I'll check that when I see the UK dealer in 10 days time and will revert.
It's a contentious issue from which all the emotion needs to be removed, but I would think that CAA (and EASA) are on thin ice if a cogent rationale were to be presented. Possibly the adopted stance comes from an inability to restrain some of the 'wide boys' who in the past have carried out mix-&-match of individual parts in dynamic components within the drive train. That's absolutely against the rules, of course; clearances will be all over the place and airworthiness compromised as a result. But essentially my (personal) argument comes from the baseline that Bell are the DA, and that their parts can & should be fitted to all 206s.
Aviation seems to have lost its way
Right, got that. This is absolute b*****ks, if you will forgive the language. I can understand the CAA being politically 'diplomatic', but this is nonsense. The orginal reason for no fitment of Agusta parts to Bell machines was a protectionist policy for the domestic market when the aircraft was first certificated by FAA. You and I might not agree with the principle but we could (just) understand the situation. I need to get out some historical docs all archived at present. 2 points that are absolute; Agusta published an Info letter (1980s) which correlated the build of their s/n ships to Bell ones (since at the time the A/B manuals were a photocopy of the Bell manuals including the IPC). This so that the correct dash number components could be checked for compliance with the Type Cert at C of A issue/renewal. Secondly, the containers with Bell pick-ticket parts that were shipped to Agusta are genuine Bell parts, from Bell inventory. I could be wrong but as far as I am aware Agusta don't make any dynamic parts for the 206 any more, and probably the airframe bits would be SOO (special order only). I'll check that when I see the UK dealer in 10 days time and will revert.
It's a contentious issue from which all the emotion needs to be removed, but I would think that CAA (and EASA) are on thin ice if a cogent rationale were to be presented. Possibly the adopted stance comes from an inability to restrain some of the 'wide boys' who in the past have carried out mix-&-match of individual parts in dynamic components within the drive train. That's absolutely against the rules, of course; clearances will be all over the place and airworthiness compromised as a result. But essentially my (personal) argument comes from the baseline that Bell are the DA, and that their parts can & should be fitted to all 206s.
Aviation seems to have lost its way
Interesting....
Indeed, the reason I bought Agusta in the first place was that I could alwsy fit Bell or Agusta parts: that was the way it was.
If you can find anything that might help some people to see sense, myself and many of my fellow AB owners would be very grateful!
Indeed, the reason I bought Agusta in the first place was that I could alwsy fit Bell or Agusta parts: that was the way it was.
If you can find anything that might help some people to see sense, myself and many of my fellow AB owners would be very grateful!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 43
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've spoken to to an operator who leases back and reckons private owners can more or less break even, even when the AC is on a mortgage. At £300 an hour DOC this seems unlikely - are any costs diluted by higher annual utilisation?
Jetranger operating costs.
So with a DRY running cost of say £280 per hour would that also include hangerage at £4000 p.a. and commercial insurance at say £13,000, based on the machine flying approx. 200 hours per year?
I accept the overall running costs do depend on times etc.
I accept the overall running costs do depend on times etc.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
206 DOCs
No, I doubt that. The Direct Operating Costs are just that; hangaage and Insurance are fixed costs and must be added, on an annual basis, and will be incurred whether the aircraft flies 1 hour or 500. So obviously to reduce the overall cost one needs to fly within reason, as much as possiblel so as to amortize the fixed costs over as many hours as possible.
As a very crude rule of thumb if you cannot fly more than 300 hours per annum, it will usually be more cost-effective to lease an aircraft rather than to own it
As a very crude rule of thumb if you cannot fly more than 300 hours per annum, it will usually be more cost-effective to lease an aircraft rather than to own it
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
206 B III op costs
"....plus parts when required over the last two years....." And that's the rub, of course. The annual Overall cost of operation will depend upon whereabouts in its maintenance cycle the machine is. If you fly 200 hrs/year there will be some years when normal scheduled maintenance will encompass just a couple of 100hr inspections and a couple of 50hr lubrication checks, some TLC and an Annual. Almost all labour and no parts of any consequence. If the next year's flying puts you into the time-allotted for replacement of hard-lifed parts (say blades) and/or O/H of any of the dynamic components, then you will need the BIG cheque book for that year. The fixed costs, of course, remain - in addition.
On top of this there are some components of the Eurocopter range that have a calendar life imposed irrespective of the number of hours flown. AND for the venerable Allison (now RR) engine, compressor and turbine have cycle limits that must be observed as well. (If you do lots of short trips less than 30mins and rinse the engine at the end of the days flying it's no good budgeting on a mini-turbine cost at 1775 hrs; the 3000 cycle limit is likely to come up first. Same price, but earlier than you had projected)
The singular benefit of the J/R is that for the most part maintenance costs are predictable, and based broadly on flying time. But they will fluctuate from year to year - see para 1 above.As an engineer, if requested, I look at the schedule of components and the hours/cycles/calendar time left to the next removal from service - and, as best can be done, put a figure on that work. If you then divide one by the other at least you get an idea of what must be spent over the period of time you intend to operate the machine. Yes my fee is not insignificant, and no, I cannot be held to those sums since there are other variables that will effect the final total, but it does help to alleviate some of the strenuous conversations that otherwise inevitably ensue. As an ex Chief Engineer I know this only too well!!
Sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear but it is a fact of life that so often seems to be overlooked
On top of this there are some components of the Eurocopter range that have a calendar life imposed irrespective of the number of hours flown. AND for the venerable Allison (now RR) engine, compressor and turbine have cycle limits that must be observed as well. (If you do lots of short trips less than 30mins and rinse the engine at the end of the days flying it's no good budgeting on a mini-turbine cost at 1775 hrs; the 3000 cycle limit is likely to come up first. Same price, but earlier than you had projected)
The singular benefit of the J/R is that for the most part maintenance costs are predictable, and based broadly on flying time. But they will fluctuate from year to year - see para 1 above.As an engineer, if requested, I look at the schedule of components and the hours/cycles/calendar time left to the next removal from service - and, as best can be done, put a figure on that work. If you then divide one by the other at least you get an idea of what must be spent over the period of time you intend to operate the machine. Yes my fee is not insignificant, and no, I cannot be held to those sums since there are other variables that will effect the final total, but it does help to alleviate some of the strenuous conversations that otherwise inevitably ensue. As an ex Chief Engineer I know this only too well!!
Sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear but it is a fact of life that so often seems to be overlooked
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cmac
what do you think of a 30 year old jetranger or a new 44. we went for the jetranger as the d o c was the same except for parts when required.we felt the 44 would take a big loss in value ie.600 hours or three years old .the jetranger would still be worth what we paid for it in three years .Have you come across this question as a engineer.
choppersquad.
what do you think of a 30 year old jetranger or a new 44. we went for the jetranger as the d o c was the same except for parts when required.we felt the 44 would take a big loss in value ie.600 hours or three years old .the jetranger would still be worth what we paid for it in three years .Have you come across this question as a engineer.
choppersquad.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
206 BIII costs vs R44
That's an interesting comparison, and no, I have never done the exercise. The R44 is a fine aircraft & Mr Robinson is a smart chap, no doubt about that. I am not up to speed with the residual values of the type as compared to the J/R, whereas you have done your homework obviously. I guess the problem is a little more complex than all the dealers present. If youstart with a brand-new machine then the comparison over a given period of operation (and the residual value at the end of it) is relatively straight-forward. Used machines, especially if part-life components have been installed at some time present a more complex number-crunching exercise. At the end of the day I suppose it is the market that determines the market value at any given moment in time. Sorry I cannot give you anything more tangible.
"the d o c was the same except for parts when required"
That's the problem. I suspect the 'parts' you'll require (or overhauls etc) will easily add up to more than the depreciation you would suffer on the R44, given your 3 year/600 hour sum.
Put it this way: I've recently sold a 37 year old JetRanger for c.£35k more than I paid for it in 2002, with around 500 hours more TT. But I'd hate to do the sum of how much I spent in between times.....but it sure would have been a better deal to buy an R44!
That's the problem. I suspect the 'parts' you'll require (or overhauls etc) will easily add up to more than the depreciation you would suffer on the R44, given your 3 year/600 hour sum.
Put it this way: I've recently sold a 37 year old JetRanger for c.£35k more than I paid for it in 2002, with around 500 hours more TT. But I'd hate to do the sum of how much I spent in between times.....but it sure would have been a better deal to buy an R44!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i would say approx 75k so far in extra costs, so not to far off the r44 drop in price for what seems to be out there in r44 values.But as you say will you pay the extra for getting in to a jetranger v a r44 even if it is 37 years old.
cs
cs
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better off to buy a R44?
- don't think so, you'd have been 150K stg worse off!
35k profit in jet ranger - GONE!
95k depreciation in R44 from 2002 to 2008 - GONE!
20k extra spent on fuel - GONE!
150k total - BLOWN! !
Plus the R44 would still have needed its annual and C of A just like the Jet Ranger, plus the 25 hour oil change hassle and maybe a couple of cylinders and a set of main rotor blades!
Never mind the embarassment of the popping and banging noises and all the shaking whenever you go to start it!
Claudia
- don't think so, you'd have been 150K stg worse off!
35k profit in jet ranger - GONE!
95k depreciation in R44 from 2002 to 2008 - GONE!
20k extra spent on fuel - GONE!
150k total - BLOWN! !
Plus the R44 would still have needed its annual and C of A just like the Jet Ranger, plus the 25 hour oil change hassle and maybe a couple of cylinders and a set of main rotor blades!
Never mind the embarassment of the popping and banging noises and all the shaking whenever you go to start it!
Claudia
I take it you went for a Bell this time !! Out of interest did you have any problems selling your Agusta Bell due to all this nonsense ? Was there a survey on it to check it didnt have any \Bell parts ? I would imagine there are a lot of machines grounded at the moment looking for A B parts .....
Indeed: that pic was in Texas! It was an accident damaged machine, rebuilt and zero-timed components throughout.
It took a while to sell the old one, but I got a sensible offer in the end...less than I wanted, more than I feared. The Agusta thing is still a problem (I was asked about it by the buyer), but if you're prepared to deal with Agusta, it shouldn't ground the aircraft as long as parts can be found. My Bell parts were adopted by the factory, so not an issue, until overhaul time.
It took a while to sell the old one, but I got a sensible offer in the end...less than I wanted, more than I feared. The Agusta thing is still a problem (I was asked about it by the buyer), but if you're prepared to deal with Agusta, it shouldn't ground the aircraft as long as parts can be found. My Bell parts were adopted by the factory, so not an issue, until overhaul time.