How long does a recreational aircraft last?

[rdarby]

What is the useful life of the typical 3 axis RA aircraft? I guess we would need to consider the airframe and the engine.

 

You see adverts for Cessna's with 4000 hours all the time, made in the 1960's. This indicates that with the maintenance they do last. Along the way they get new engines etc. but you know that if you can afford the maintenance there is still an aircraft for you in 40 years time.

 

Does something like a Rotax 912 last as long? I understand you get about 2000 hours out of them before a rebuild. How often can that be done?

 

I've never seen a RA aircraft for sale with more than about 1700 hours on it, they tend to be under 1000 hours. Is this because they don't last or because they haven't been in existance long enough to build up the time?

 

The reason I am asking is because I am considering buying, but if the aircraft only has a useful life of say 2000 hours, which is actually a number of years, but not the 20 years of payments added to my mortgage if I use equity to pay for it, then it isn't worth buying. Not financially anyway.

 

This brings another perspective to it, if I need to buy a new RA aircraft every 10 years but a Cessna last 40 years, is RA in fact cheaper than GA?

 

Ryan

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The Drifters @ Clifton have 1900 + 1600 hours.

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

As long as you make sure it doesn't rust away (which Cessnas can and do too) and don't over-stress the aircraft, there is no reason why something like the SportStar you are flying now would not be around in 4000 hours and/or 40 years time. Carbon and glass airframes probably have even more life in them than metal aircraft. There are plenty of 20+ year old aircraft like the type we fly out there, many of them home built, of course.

 

You can rebuild engines till the cows come home or the crank-case cracks, whichever comes sooner. How many times is that with a Rotax? Hard to predict... If you are the only person flying it, good chance you will never reach TBO; 2000 hours is a long time. Just keep various bits up to date as needed, but a full overhaul is unlikely to be required.

 

If you buy one now for private use (no school abuse) hangar it, take care of it and do 50-100 hours a year, the aircraft will last you for a long time. No reason why it couldn't be 40 years.

 

And just for the record: I'll have a 10 year old SportStar over a 40 year old Cessna any day! :P

 

Have you noticed how long these old aircraft remain on the for sale sites? Yes, they fly, but their economic life is over, otherwise people would buy them. Just desperate owners trying to get a lot more back for them than they paid 20+ years ago! (sellers in the US seem to price them much more realistically)

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

There could be a lot of factors in the aging of an aircraft. Type of construction can't really compare a tin RAAus aircraft with a C172. Lighter skins and construction and subjecting the aircraft to rough strips and bumpy air would show up earlier signs of stress than a C172. 2 stroke Vs 4 stroke could in some installations make a difference to airframes. Hangared or not sealed Vs unimproved strips. Well (Over) maintained Vs just what is legally required. Careful single owner Vs Syndicate with inconsiderate members.

 

the modern recreational aircraft, LSA ect ect, it is still to young to really see if light weight = long use by date.

 

 

[Ultralights]

some early jabirus getting around with 6000 hrs or more now

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

yeah even the ones flipped and driven over cliffs still fly anyone trying for flood damaged one.?

 

some early jabirus getting around with 6000 hrs or more now

[Thirsty]

At least one of the jabs where I fly has more than 7000 hours and still going strong.

 

 

[facthunter]

Built to lightweight limitations how could they last? Nobody knows how long fibreglass keeps it's strength. There are no airframe inspections af a specific nature and often failures lead to modifications and recommended inspections, and LIFED components of the structure, (spars etc), subsequently. IF all owners of specific types would report all breakages you would build up a base of knowledge that would help others, but you will never get what GA or Airlines have, because they are more regulated, in design, build and repair.

 

Some Piper Commanche have over 15,000 hours on the airframe, but they were an exceptional plane for the time.(very well corrosion proofed). The Beechcraft Bonanza/Debonair are built well but maintenance COSTS, because NO PLANE can be just built and driven, and not regularly inspected. I have flown a Douglas built aircraft with a total airframe time in excess of 70,000 hours and it was still sound, but because of the way it was built maintained and operated.

 

Older aircraft are a worry to regulating bodies. It's not just time in years since manufacture, it's the working environment that they are in. You get corrosion, stress induced fatigue. U/V damage, Chemical damage. Vibration induced skin cracks. Looseness in hinges pulleys bellcrank pivots etc. Aircraft maintenance is a high-tech very sophisticated industry, that hasn't been much a part of recreational aircraft except for Aerobatic certified aircraft, ( to an extent).

 

If you want long life don't expect it from Rec planes. They are more of a hobby. Don't send a boy on a mans errand. Nev

 

 

[winsor68]

What exactly would be considered a long life for a Recreational Aircraft... should we expect 20 000 hours or is 5000 hours acceptable?

 

 

[rdarby]

How about from a financial perspective a proportional amount of hours to a GA plane that is small, if there is such a thing. What did a C150 cost when new compared to a good RA plane, and work out a ratio of the expected hours.

 

Given that RA seems to be developing much of the future of light aircraft with composites etc, maybe we will all be wanting a new one before the current ones have a chance to wear out. One thing I do fear with buying something expensive now is not that it won't be flyable in 10 years time but that there will be so many much nicer ones around I won't want to fly it.

 

Although the designs of the 80's are still going strong, or at least their offspring such as the CH701 and Savannah.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I belive 20,000 hrs on a looked after RA aircraft airframe is not overly optomistic. Maybe new rod ends cables pulleys and a new bolt kit thru it and loose rivets replaced. Be a pretty loose airframe by then.

 

I'd be interested in knowing some of the times on Thrusters.

 

Ozzie

 

 

[pudestcon]

I'd be interested in knowing some of the times on Thrusters.Ozzie

The thing about Thrusters, and what attracted me to them, is they are essentially 'component' aircraft. It makes it relatively easy to renew parts as required. It would be entirely feasible to be flying a Thruster that only has the compliance plate as an original part.

 

Pud

 

 

 

[Guest Walter Buschor]

I cannot see any reason why new Recreational Planes cannot last at least as long as older GA designs. yes - they are NOT as strong and don't take to abuse as well as the ols 150 BUT if they are treated accordingly - and serviced then they will go on " forever ". Let's compare it to cars that were built 40 years ago. The things are made of heavier grade steel etc yet still used to rust within 2-4 years of being new. New cars are made of thinner steel etc but rust is hardly a problem anymore. I looked at a Lake Buccaneer last week and the owner was spraying oil all over it to help prevent corrosion. He said that the alloys just were not as good as what is used these days. The same would apply to old cessnas and Pipers.

 

6061 aluminium will last nearly " forever " as will a Rotax 912. Fiberglass is probably just as good as long as it is parked in a hangar and has other great advantages. If a fiberglass plane is stored outside all it's life however I think the sun will destroy the glues in time and the structure will become compromised.

 

Finally - I managed to go for a fly again as the weather has cleared for the time being.

 

fly safe

 

Walter

 

 

[farri]

How long does a recreational aircraft last?

 

Not very long at all in the hands of some pilots.

 

Frank.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Good Point Frank.There are a few ultralights around that are lets just say are, "out of rig" compared to when they left the factory. To put this into perspective- The sportstars are very well built aluminium aircraft as LSA's go.They have been designed with a airframe life projected if looked after, to be around the 14 000 hours airframe life.Now I beleive not one is there yet.A long way off.But if realy looked after it should get there.

 

The GA - Whitney Boomerang, built here in Kingaroy has a airframe life of 22 000 hours.Which is excellent.

 

The tecnams i tried to find out about, Ive been told that they dont have a airframe life as such, its on condition.There a few in europe with around 5 000 hours or so.As mentioned above there are Drifters around with 1500 plus hours, Thrusters with thousands of hours,Jabbys with 5000 hours plus flying around.

 

The thing to remember is that if your flying a particular aircraft which is the highest time aircraft in the fleet.You may be the test pilot.Also you maybe flying a a/c with half the airframe hours than others flying around.But if they have been flogged, ie-stressed they may fail long before a Older Time a/c.Same as corrosion, alot of wings have fallen off aluminium aircraft, well before designed life has even been close.Due to the corrosion, and lack of inspections being correctly carried out.Its realy a crystal Ball thing.

 

PS- airframe life for the Sportstar and Boomerang has been sourced by their respective manufacturers.

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I guess what you are really asking is "how long can a RAA aircraft last with minimal maintenance?" Any aircraft can last indefinitely under the "My Grandfather's Axe" principal (It's my grandfather's axe, we replaced the handle 5 times and the head twice - ie there's nothing of the original left). As the owners of a number of aging recreational aircraft we have battled with the constant need to "maintain" them. Fabric needs renewing, cables, fuel lines, rods, tyres, etc all need replacing. These things sneak up on you with RAA and often left to your judgement. One day you look at it and decide to take it out of commission pending major work - it costs a lot in time and money. The temptation is to keep pushing your luck and keep flying it. Our Wheeler Scout is in a shed waiting for wing recovering, the turbulent is likewise sitting because the glued joints are suspect, the Karasport is due for a rerigging, we've just finished replacing all the fuel & static lines in the RANS. Engines & props wear out. Occasionally someone breaks them. Or it floats away in a flood.

 

GA has maintenance schedules, so when the engine is at its hours it has to be (expensively) rebuilt. I knew people who bought GA aircraft and ran them until the engine ran out of time, then had to sell cheap because they could not afford the rebuild and the buyer had to run the risk the engine would not come up to spec.

 

Owning an aircraft is a lot of peaks and troughs, if you want to hold on to the one aircraft for years. It may be better to buy new, sell after a (couple?) of years while it is still looking good and not due for major work and buy another new / near new and keep cycling through that way. I am looking at one of the troughs now - the C152 is due a paint job - that means new fibreglass tips, cuffs, plastic interiors, some skin work, renew anthing that looks sad - the paint is the cheap part.

 

Sue

 

 

[farri]

Any aircraft can last indefinitely under the "My Grandfather's Axe" principal (It's my grandfather's axe, we replaced the handle 5 times and the head twice - ie there's nothing of the original left). Sue

Whenever I have to submit the total number of hours that my aircraft has flown, I scratch my head and wonder.............."Well which piece do you want first"?

 

My Drifter is 25 years old. ( Still Original of course )

 

Frank

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Just checked the Lightwing Maintenance-manual, and the inspection programm lists out to 5000 hrs. I couldn't find any mention of any lifed components.

 

It is your basic 'rag and tube' style aircraft from the same mold as the Piper Cub, Aeronca Chief, etc, so should last forever if correctly maintained, and components replaced as they wear out. I have ferried a Lightwing with 3600 hard training hours on it, and it flew as good as the day it left the factory. Mine currently has around 600 hrs, so I'm not too concerned just yet.

 

There are Slepcev Storches in the bush with 2000 to 4000 hard hours on them, they seem to be holding up reasonably well, if maintained.

 

The De Haviland DHC-2 aircraft that I maintain at work, are now approaching 70 years since they left the factory. They are designed properly in the first place, built incredably strong, and are ultimatly rebuildable. If they are still flying commercially (and making money) at 70 years, will they be with us forever ?.

 

As mentioned before, the financially viability of continued repair or rebuild, becomes a big factor. It is why unfortunatly we are seeing the slow but sure dissappearance of the venerable old DC-3.

 

They were certainly built right, and made to last, but about the only ones operating now are in the hands of museums or other entities, who spend large and continuous amounts of money to keep the aircraft flying.

 

Size can be a liability, as also demonstrated with the Avro Vulcan, large WW2 bombers, and the Connie for example.

 

As Pud and Farri mentioned, UL aircraft like the Thruster, Drifter etc will continue because component change is easy, and endlessly possible if the parts remain available. They are simply built and designed so that the average man can maintain them.

 

Specialized aircraft like the Streak Shadow which uses an inovative (for the time) sandwich composit structure may become harder to keep going, especially if damaged. Plus there are not a lot around to start with, which doesn't help in the future either.

 

The current all-metal built aircraft, such as the Savannah, Brumby, Cheetah, Tecnam, Texan, sportstar and others are easy to repair if damaged, and also have good fatigue lives so they will last.

 

All metal structures have stood the test of time in many aircraft over many years now.

 

The big mystery area really is composits, for the following reasons;

 

1. Damage is often hidden from sight, and hard to detect when it occurs. 2. Damaged aircraft often have to return to the original factory for repairs, which cost time and money. 3. There are not many people around who have the knowledge or training to SAFELY carry out quick field damage repairs or assesments. 5. Fatigue life on used component parts (IE: wings) is hard to verify. 6. The actual fatigue lives on composite airframes can vary considerably, depending on who made it, and the materials used. (including repairs) 7. The actual aging life (continued strength) of a composit structure, varies considerably due to sunlight exposure, and in flight usage.

 

Designing load bearing composit structures can be complex, and requires specialized training. Many of the large composit surfaces used on modern Commercial and military aircraft have the metal attachments and fixtures embedded in them, for attachment of the surface. Obviously they have found metal to be stronger and/or more durable than the composit itself.

 

Even this can fail as was demomstrated over New york, when an Airbus lost it's complete tailfin and crashed, after encountering turbulance from a preceeding boeing 747, during take-off.

 

A composit structure may look just as shiny and strong as it did 20 years previous, however it can fatigue and weaken with age, and lead to sudden and unannounced failure. Carbon fiber and Kevlar in particular require very specialized skills and techniques to repair, so that the original design-strength is maintained.

 

All Recreational and UL airframes must be maintained well, repaired properly, and monitored for continued airworthiness, for in-flight safety. It is important if you don't have the skills yourself as owner, to find the right people or organizations, who have the skills and knowledge to do the correct job for you.............................................................................Maj...

 

Footnote : Author hold an FAA approved Advanced-composit certificate Level 2.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Well said Ross.:thumb_up:

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi Ryan, I flew a tecnam Golf today.It has 1932.24 hours on her when I flew her this morning. I started flying her a couple of years ago, she had about 4 or 5 hundred hours on her then.She flys the same now (nice) as she did when i first flew her.It has had a doubler fitted to the top of the wing skins due to being a flying school trainer, and having students and probably pilots extend flaps over the VFE which is 60 knots from time to time unintensional im sure. A brand new engine was fitted last week.A Rotax 912.The original engine never missed a beat, just replaced because it was near the 2000 TBO. I thought that if we cant give specific details on personal experiences it may help you out with your question.Cheers

 

 

[facthunter]

When you use Al skins of .015" you will get a lot of cracks in stress areas. That is why I prefer steel welded tube (triangulated). No bending loads in that type of structure( fuselage). A good spruce spar (solid ,not laminated) should be about everlasting. (Thorough inspection after any impact required) I wouldn't want to be in a cantilever wing plane (U/L) with more than 5,000 hours and even then you would want inspection panels to check on the critical areas frequently. The Jabiru seems to be strong. ( shows up well in prangs ) but the comments about life assessment for fibreglass are valid. The undercarriage legs are not bombproof, and they are fibreglass. Plenty of other U/L's have undercarriage failures, too.. Nev

 

 

[rdarby]

Thanks very much. I think that based on the above 10 years of flying is easily achieved, you would probably want to upgrade then anyway, but as part of the equation for buying or not, I think it's okay to buy (other factors exluded) from the point of view that your plane won't fall apart too quickly, unless you do it to it of course! So it is an asset that can last. Ryan

 

 

[sseeker]

My schools Gazelle and Skyfox CA25 both have around 1450hrs on them, that's engine and airframe. Engine is a Rotax 912A. They're maintained well and when money needs to be spent on them, money is spent on them.

 

They both run sweet. I suppose you could say, if you don't have the money to maintain the aircraft of choice properly, then don't buy that aeroplane.

 

-Andrew

 

 

[facthunter]

3 or 4 THOUSAND hours is a lot of flying for a small plane, School planes can do this but for a "private" use plane. it is a lifetime. I see a lot of lightweight aircraft parts that haven't done the job. Eg rudder/ brake pedals, nosewheel steering parts. This is not always the fault of the design but the bulldozer drivers that get in a U/L and don't realise that it is a lightweight structure, and apply lighter pressure accordingly. The Whitney Boomerang is built for training use, but it is too heavy for RAAus,

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

SSeeker, That's a good point you make about being able to afford to maintain your aircraft of choice correctly. Often you'll get the pilot that just flys, flys, flys,( nothing wrong with that !) but thinks maintenance is something for the other guys. Then they'll lose interest and pass the aircraft on, so it is the next guy that gets lumbered with the under-maintained aircraft, often unknowingly...............maj...