hotrod150 wrote: Annual inspections aren't that bad anyway, my last one took less than 4 hours & cost me less than $150. The key is to make it an inspection only by taking care of all the maintenance & squawks ahead of time, & having an IA that lets you be part of the process.

That is impressive hotrod. I save my small bs for the annual, but that does run the bill up.

G'Day

Like I said, that's for an inspection only-- and for a simple airplane (fixed gear, fixed prop, 4-cyl, carburated) at that, with no "systems". I do my own oil/filter changes when required, and before the inspection I check mag timing & cyl compression, clean & gap plugs, replace air filter, check fuel screens (3 on my airplane) & drain float bowl, inspect exhaust system, grease wheel bearings & t/w, service brakes & tires, check ELT & battery, service battery, check mag switch. With all that done, if an IA & his helper (me) can't complete an inspection on a 150,170, or similar in a half day or less, they're dogging it. That's not including fixing any squawks that come up, but throughout the year and esp when I do the pre-inspection maintenance I give things a pretty good look so there isn't usually anything too major.

29singlespeed wrote:Appears my question has been answered about operating cost on certified vs. experimental :: As with all aviation it just depends!

Before I committed everything to buying a kit, I was the same and wanted to "do the math".

I put together a spreadsheet which modelled the costs of flying a certain number of hours in an exp. vs. cert. aircraft, with the cert. plane costing half what the exp. plane did up front.

I was astounded by how quickly you get the payback, it does depend (Sorry!) heavily on how many hours you do, especially at the lower end of the spectrum, but if you want to fly a lot there is simply no competition.

For me, the break even point was just 400 hours flying, even if I pay for annuals.
We do have much high fuel and parts costs here though, although fuel is basically a constant with either cert. or exp. if you get the same size engine.

P.s. If you're ever in NZ and want to fly, look me up.

Battson wrote:..........
I put together a spreadsheet which modelled the costs of flying a certain number of hours in an exp. vs. cert. aircraft, with the cert. plane costing half what the exp. plane did up front. .....For me, the break even point was just 400 hours flying, even if I pay for annuals. .....

Assuming the same engine & therefore the same fuel burn & fuel costs, just where do the savings come from?

Not many people get away with an inspection, even if only a 1/2 day, only costing $150

senior wrote:Not many people get away with an inspection, even if only a 1/2 day, only costing $150

"Get away with" has a negative spin-- my annuals have all been perfectly legitimate, thorough, & performed I/A/W FAR 43 Appendix (D) & the appropriate aircraft & engine checklists. My current IA works out of the hangar at his airpark home & his rates are based on his low overhead. Actually, the last time around he charged me 2.5 hours @ $45/hour = $110. Probably closer to 3 hours for him, & as much for me buttoning & unbuttoning things. Plus all my time prior to the inspection doing maintenance.
The fact that we're friends no doubt affected the pricing also. Not many people are gonna get a great deal like that, but you don't have to pay through the nose either. It's worth it to check around to see what your options are.

hotrod150 wrote: Assuming the same engine & therefore the same fuel burn & fuel costs, just where do the savings come from?

Sorry only just saw this today - two places where the big savings come from:

1. Parts costs - they are WAY cheaper e.g. baffle kit for C185 - $1450, baffle kit for Bearhawk (RV kit) - $200
2. Labour costs - I can do most of work myself and only pay for L.A.M.E.'s (A&P) time for inspection and signoff. The only thing I can't do / won't do is prop and engine core until I've been schooled.

In terms of that model, racking up 400 hours for me will probably take about 8 years. So I worked on that to determine savings. Cheers

I have a Champ. If it wasn't a family heirloom I wouldn't have it for the fact it's a certified airplane. My dad bought it in 1961 and it will be passed on to my son. As soon as I'm done with my Bearhawk Patrol it is coming home for a rebuild. I dread buying certified parts.

I have seen some really cool experimental aircraft out there. I will sum it up from my standpoint. As a repair station owner I look at economics all the time. As per my Completed Products Liability package, we cannot sign off anything experimental. The insurance guys did the numbers and it fails the test. So if your looking at what breaks more, to a greater serious effect, then the insurance lads have covered the argument.

Older airplane arguments. Yes, on anything 50 years old will always have something ready to break. Cessna, for example, is revising inspections on older 100 series aircraft to include some pricey NDT inspections. That being said, I like run out ragged out aircraft. I rebuild the engine, since it failing ruins your day. Now that is known. I always get the prop done, even fixed pitch (it is really cheap), one less moving part worry. I usually dump all the avionics (since I get them cheaper with crap in the panel) and put in the latest wiz bang flashy stuff. I get the alternator rebuilt, replace a bunch of hardware (done to spec, since most aircraft have been stove bolted to some extent over the years), do the O rings in the brake system (we are talking about $50 in rubber here max). Carefully inspect or replace all the cables and pulleys. Then do the interior, glass and paint it. You essentially have a new airplane now. Exactly as you want it with cool, new theoretically, reliable stuff looking exactly as you envisioned your ride. It essentially is irrelevant what is in the logbooks now from previous generations, it is historical entertainment. Not to pick on them, but I see it all too often (I had 17 of them in for work in May alone). Bonanza buyers and owners obsess over stuff in the past, kind of like the folks of middle eastern faith and their virginity obsessions.

dogpilot wrote:I have seen some really cool experimental aircraft out there. I will sum it up from my standpoint. As a repair station owner I look at economics all the time. As per my Completed Products Liability package, we cannot sign off anything experimental. The insurance guys did the numbers and it fails the test. So if your looking at what breaks more, to a greater serious effect, then the insurance lads have covered the argument.

Older airplane arguments. Yes, on anything 50 years old will always have something ready to break. Cessna, for example, is revising inspections on older 100 series aircraft to include some pricey NDT inspections. That being said, I like run out ragged out aircraft. I rebuild the engine, since it failing ruins your day. Now that is known. I always get the prop done, even fixed pitch (it is really cheap), one less moving part worry. I usually dump all the avionics (since I get them cheaper with crap in the panel) and put in the latest wiz bang flashy stuff. I get the alternator rebuilt, replace a bunch of hardware (done to spec, since most aircraft have been stove bolted to some extent over the years), do the O rings in the brake system (we are talking about $50 in rubber here max). Carefully inspect or replace all the cables and pulleys. Then do the interior, glass and paint it. You essentially have a new airplane now. Exactly as you want it with cool, new theoretically, reliable stuff looking exactly as you envisioned your ride. It essentially is irrelevant what is in the logbooks now from previous generations, it is historical entertainment. Not to pick on them, but I see it all too often (I had 17 of them in for work in May alone). Bonanza buyers and owners obsess over stuff in the past, kind of like the folks of middle eastern faith and their virginity obsessions.

Great perspective. Have any of those fresh rebuilt aircraft needing a home that might not be pretty yet?

I have a dumb question - I hope you don't mind:

As far as I'm informed (i.e. not very), in Australia it is prohibited to fly an experimental over "build-up areas". I'm not entirely sure what exactly constitutes a "build up area", except that towns and cities are off limits. In the US and/or Canada, what are the rules there? Am I allowed to fly over a town (high enough, obviously) or do I have to skirt the, well, outskirts in order to stay legal?

Also, if I want to go E-LSA in Australia, I first have to have it S-LSA, otherwise I can't do it unless I build it myself.

The reason I mention Australia is that I hope to get the money for a Carbon Cub, and I want to be able to leave it in Australia while I travel home to Denmark and make some money. Long story.

Anyway, are there limitations as to where one can fly an experimental in the US and Canada?

Battson wrote:

hotrod150 wrote: Assuming the same engine & therefore the same fuel burn & fuel costs, just where do the savings come from?

Sorry only just saw this today - two places where the big savings come from:
1. Parts costs - they are WAY cheaper e.g. baffle kit for C185 - $1450, baffle kit for Bearhawk (RV kit) - $200
2. Labour costs - I can do most of work myself and only pay for L.A.M.E.'s (A&P) time for inspection and signoff. The only thing I can't do / won't do is prop and engine core until I've been schooled. .......

I was talking about operating costs, not parts (build) cost. I don't know about NZ, but here in the US I can do a certain amount of maintenance on my own, and more yet under the supervision of my IA. So like you, I only pay for the actual inspection & signoff. If I owned an experimental I didn't build myself, I'd be in about the same boat. The only difference would be if I had to buy parts I maybe wouldn't need type certificated stuff, and I could use an A&P instead of an IA for the condition inspection (aka annual)- both of which might save me a little money.

dogpilot wrote:... It essentially is irrelevant what is in the logbooks now from previous generations, it is historical entertainment. Not to pick on them, but I see it all too often (I had 17 of them in for work in May alone). Bonanza buyers and owners obsess over stuff in the past, kind of like the folks of middle eastern faith and their virginity obsessions.

When selling my 170,I had a guy ask about some ground-loop damage from a number of years ago. The damage had been repaired & the paperwork was squared away, and I told the guy what you see is what you get. He was concerned over the damage history, so I asked him if he would like it better if the rapir hadn't been logged. he didn't think that was funny.
Glad he didn't spot the really old damage history from 1961, the 337 for the repair work starts out with "replaced fuselage" and goes on from there at great length.

If damage has been repaired properly, there really is no real concern. I have put a 206 back together that was really, really dinged. Just to check the completed unit we pull lines from various points on the aircraft to check symmetry and such. We had a relatively new 206, with no damage history and did the same to compare. The factory aircraft had more overall variation than the rebuilt one. Workmanship on later aircraft is poor the newer they get the worse the metalwork is.

29singlespeed, I wrote that poorly, the 17 was just the Bonanza population in work. We normally have 25-30 aircraft at once in work. Our normal work is damage repair or rebuilds of aircraft like Twin Otters, EMB-120's, Caravans, PC-12's and the like. A slug of Bonanzas showed up as Beech shut down their piston repair centers and declared bankruptcy. So a lot of planes where orphaned at once. Find a plane and we will re-build it. However the math works better if you do a lot yourself, shop the engine, prop, paint avionics and do the small gridley (hardware and such) yourself. We have a paint facility, but it is kind of far for most on this board, we are in Georgia. I live in AZ, but I commute to GA when I'm needed, like next week to get a Caravan ready for Ethiopia and finish up the paint & Avionics in my 185. I sold my Birddog today, sniff. Had this one for 13 years, but needed the hanger space for the 185. Have to kill somebody to get space in Flagstaff.

Progress on a splattered 206 Soloy Conversion

Twoupfront wrote:As far as I'm informed (i.e. not very), in Australia it is prohibited to fly an experimental over "build-up areas". I'm not entirely sure what exactly constitutes a "build up area", except that towns and cities are off limits. In the US and/or Canada, what are the rules there? Am I allowed to fly over a town (high enough, obviously) or do I have to skirt the, well, outskirts in order to stay legal?

Your rules may be different, but on this side of the ditch that only applies until you complete test flying and get issued a flight certificate for passengers. Once that's done, you can fly into any airport AFAIK.

A factor for some is that experimentals (or some Rotax powered airplanes) have a fuel flexibility that is not available with most certified aircraft. Specifically, if the fuel system components all the way from the fuel caps to the carburator are ethanol tolerant, you'll be able to run whatever mogas is available. One must also be sure the higher RVP of mogas won't cause a problem and you've done your homework to know that you will be fine on less octane. If you've done the work to a C170, that won't make it legal. If you've done the work to a Glastar, enjoy the cost savings of less $ for fuel, less lead build up, reduced oil changes.

Battson wrote:Your rules may be different, but on this side of the ditch that only applies until you complete test flying and get issued a flight certificate for passengers. Once that's done, you can fly into any airport AFAIK.

Thanks, Battson. Decisions to make for me

Battson wrote:Your rules may be different, but on this side of the ditch that only applies until you complete test flying and get issued a flight certificate for passengers. Once that's done, you can fly into any airport AFAIK.

Technically, we have similar limitations in the US about flying experimental aircraft over densely populated areas - with similarly vague definitions of what densely populated means.

This is covered in FAR 91-319(c):

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of safety in air commerce.

Having owned both, I can say it is an easy choice for me. I really enjoy the freedom to customize the plane the way I want it and to select components and parts from any source where it makes sense. Experimental avionics are reasonably priced and have advanced features. If something needs to be worked on, I just take care of it, and can be back in the air on my schedule. Insurance rates for like aircraft are comparable with type certificated planes (at least mine is).

Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy owning ANY airplane. It is just that the liberty that comes with Experimental makes it the better choice for me.

May I suggest that instead of comparing total cost, it makes more sense to compare total value. Value comparisons are more subjective, but I think more accurately represent what is received in return. For instance, flying a new experimental plane instead of a 50 year old TC plane is of value to me because I'm flying a new plane for 1/3 of the capital cost of a new TC plane. Ownership costs for everything except maintenance are comparable, mostly. (I run car gas, but could in the right TC plane, too). I can better control maintenance quality and costs by being experimental.

So I'm flying a new plane, that is built with the best quality components available, that is maintained to a high standard, that has advanced avionics, that I know inside and out, that has the mechanic along on every flight, and that has the performance and handling characteristics I most desire. To me that adds up to a lot of value for the investment made and that is why, for me at least, experimental aircraft ownership makes a lot of sense.

Mike

blackrock wrote:Having owned both, I can say it is an easy choice for me. I really enjoy the freedom to customize the plane the way I want it and to select components and parts from any source where it makes sense. Experimental avionics are reasonably priced and have advanced features. If something needs to be worked on, I just take care of it, and can be back in the air on my schedule. Insurance rates for like aircraft are comparable with type certificated planes (at least mine is).

Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy owning ANY airplane. It is just that the liberty that comes with Experimental makes it the better choice for me.

May I suggest that instead of comparing total cost, it makes more sense to compare total value. Value comparisons are more subjective, but I think more accurately represent what is received in return. For instance, flying a new experimental plane instead of a 50 year old TC plane is of value to me because I'm flying a new plane for 1/3 of the capital cost of a new TC plane. Ownership costs for everything except maintenance are comparable, mostly. (I run car gas, but could in the right TC plane, too). I can better control maintenance quality and costs by being experimental.

So I'm flying a new plane, that is built with the best quality components available, that is maintained to a high standard, that has advanced avionics, that I know inside and out, that has the mechanic along on every flight, and that has the performance and handling characteristics I most desire. To me that adds up to a lot of value for the investment made and that is why, for me at least, experimental aircraft ownership makes a lot of sense.

Mike

Well written, and my thoughts exactly.