RAA to GA?

[pete8862]

Hi everyone, I am tossing up if I should change from Raa to Ga, as I can't see the advantage in Raa. The price of Raa aircraft seem to be to high for me, icould get a Cessna 150 or Piper Tomahawk for half to price of a Jabiru or the like. Can some of you more experienced pilots give me some advice please.

 

Pete

 

 

[facthunter]

Are you talking of hiring or owning? If you are going to purchase something like the two you mention, The first 100 hourly could easily cost more that the purchase price. Some of them would almost be beyond economical repair for the long haul. That's why they are cheap. They are looking at looming problems, with more attention being paid to their condition. Nev

 

 

[Guernsey]

And don't forget you cannot do your own maintenance.

 

Alan.

 

 

[old man emu]

What you must realise is that old C150s and Tomahawks are just that: OLD.

 

If you are looking at one of these in the price range of $25-35,000, you can bet that the engine is almost time expired, so you will be up for something in the vicinity of $30,000 for an overhauled engine. If you fit that (at about $5000 labour and associated replacement parts), who would buy your plane for $60-70,000?

 

That is only thinking of engine replacement. You would want to have all ADs done, and if you were buying a Tomahawk, you would have to know how much time was left in the various components that have a time limits on their lives. Would you want to pull the wings off a Tomahawk and try to fine a low life time pair to refit?

 

About the best bet for a GA type purchase is a C172 at about $40,000. But these are like driving around in a white Commodore or Falcon with automatic transmission and a straight-six engine. They don't provide the "wind-in-hair, devil-may-care" type of flying that you would enjoy with an RAA airplane.

 

OME

 

 

[reggie]

And dont forget about the possibility of corrosion. Good chance an aircraft of that age is full of it.

 

 

[jakej]

And don't forget you cannot do your own maintenance.Alan.

Hi Alan

 

You can do some maintenance, it's called schedule 8 http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/airworth/42zc_1.pdf (note the info on page 3) however you can't issue your own maintenance release or 'sign off' (without going into detail here) anything that requires a LAME's signature.

 

Jake J

 

 

[pete8862]

Thanks guys,

 

I am just tossing up ideas at the moment.

 

Pete

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

The only reason I would be going GA over RAA is if you need more than two seats. If you don't RAA offers far greater value for money and in most cases considerably better performance. If you look at hire rates for both types of aircraft, RAA seem to be considerably less than GA, this says to me that the cost of owning a newer RAA aircraft is still a lot less than an older GA aircraft, despite the initial outlay being more.

 

 

[Timold]

Hi Pete, I'm a GA pilot flying a C182 about 200 hrs a year, I'm going to RAA because of the maintenance cost. I am soon to be the proud owner of an AAk Hornet and expect the cost of ownership to be about 1/4 of the C182. Good luck with your quest. Tim

 

 

[Ultralights]

if on a limited budget, i would seriously look at a early Jabiru LSA. they perform well, 100Kts cruise! fun to fly, no corrosion issues, and cheap to maintain as nothing to seriously go wrong, except engine issues. basic bullet-proof little fun aircraft. . and all around the 30 to 40K mark.

 

 

[pete8862]

if on a limited budget, i would seriously look at a early Jabiru LSA. they perform well, 100Kts cruise! fun to fly, no corrosion issues, and cheap to maintain as nothing to seriously go wrong, except engine issues. basic bullet-proof little fun aircraft. . and all around the 30 to 40K mark.

I'm a bit tall to fit into the early jabs, i wish they had some more leg room. It would have to be at least a 170 to be comfortable.

Pete

 

 

[facthunter]

The potential for corrosion and spar issues exist with the types mentioned. When you look at the cost of repairs they are not too high IF you relate them to the cost of a NEW one of the model you have. NOT to it's current purchase price. The 150 is not very big in the cockpit. They have been a much better aircraft than some give them credit for. No 0ne would have expected these things to be still flying 50 or more years later.

 

I would generally not like to see an engine like a cont O-200 or a lycoming 0-235 rebuilt a third time..

 

There may be perfectly good examples of a lot of old planes out there, but they would have to be for sale and a type you want/like. A lot have been sitting around for a while and may have had little use over a period and that is not good for the engine in particular. and often an owner who is not interested in spending any money on it, or afford to hangar it.Nev

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

6 of one or half a dozen of the other, either way nothing wrong with getting an old 150 type, just ensure that a thorough pre purchase inspection is carried out. a C150 with half life engine and prop will give many years of enjoyment and are cheap and easy to maintain as you can do a fair bit of the maintenance yourself under schedule 8 reducing the costs encurred leaving the important stuff only a LAME can do. when you do it this way, costs are comparable to similar RAA aircraft.

 

 

[winsor68]

From Dunlopdangler on another thread...

 

Copy of Schedule 8 of CAR 1988

 

Schedule 8 Maintenance that may be carried out on a class B aircraft by a pilot

 

entitled to do so under subregulation 42ZC (4)

 

(subregulation 42ZC (4))

 

1. Removal or installation of landing gear tyres, but only if the removal or installation does

 

not involve the complete jacking of the aircraft.

 

2. Repair of pneumatic tubes of landing gear tyres.

 

3. Servicing of landing gear wheel bearings.

 

4. Replacement of defective safety wiring or split pins, but not including wiring or pins in

 

control systems.

 

5. Removal or refitting of a door, but only if:

 

(a) no disassembly of the primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is

 

involved; and

 

(b) if the aircraft is to be operated with the door removed — the aircraft has a flight

 

manual and the manual indicates that the aircraft may be operated with the door

 

removed.

 

6. Replacement of side windows in an unpressurised aircraft.

 

7. Replacement of seats, but only if the replacement does not involve disassembly of any part

 

of the primary structure of the aircraft.

 

8. Repairs to the upholstery or decorative furnishings of the interior of the cabin or cockpit.

 

9. Replacement of seat belts or harnesses.

 

10. Replacement or repair of signs and markings.

 

11. Replacement of bulbs, reflectors, glasses, lenses or lights.

 

12. Replacement, cleaning, or setting gaps of spark plugs.

 

13. Replacement of batteries.

 

14. Changing oil filters or air filters.

 

15. Changing or replenishing engine oil or fuel.

 

16. Lubrication not requiring disassembly or requiring only the removal of non-structural parts,

 

or of cover plates, cowlings and fairings.

 

17. Replenishment of hydraulic fluid.

 

18. Application of preservative or protective materials, but only if no disassembly of the

 

primary structure or operating system of the aircraft is involved.

 

19. Removal or replacement of equipment used for agricultural purposes.

 

20. Removal or replacement of glider tow hooks.

 

21. Carrying out of an inspection under regulation 42G of a flight control system that has been

 

assembled, adjusted, repaired, modified or replaced.

 

22. Carrying out of a daily inspection of an aircraft.

 

read in conjunction with the full CAAP and associated regs..

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

In my opinion anything not in these regs should be left alone by your average LSA Ra-Aus pilot as well... So I guess the only difference in actual aircraft work is whether it is carried out by a LAME or Level 2... Unless you are the "handy worked with tools on cars all your life" sort... or undergo some serious training...

 

 

[Spriteah]

Pete I fly and own both RAA and ga. I agree with most comments above that RAA is cheaper. You can purchase some good RAA planes for 40k.

 

If you buy ga you must have at least an annual from a lame which will cost at a min several thousand dollars if they find nothing wrong. The reality is they will find problems and out comes the cheque book. But some people like ga options.

 

 

[REastwood]

Hi Pete, I started in RAA but after an engine failure after only 280 hours in a brand new aircraft I decided to go to GA. I recently bought a Cessna 172M in excellent condition, it took a bit of looking and traveling to find but it was worth it. The engine is the o320-e2d with an STC for MOGAS, and are well known for their reliability. The aircraft is a joy to fly, we mainly go touring and it is perfectly suited to that role. As for the "dreaded annual" costing "many thousands of dollars" this does not have to be the case, do your homework, find the right LAME (even if you have to fly a few hours to get to a good one) and learn about your aircraft and what you can do yourself. I now have an aircraft I am confident in, I can put two fold up bikes in the back, I can fly into a city airport if I wish all for very little more than the cost of running a J230.

 

 

[68volksy]

Personally the GA option is the only option for me when looking to own an aircraft. Everyone loves the fact RA is "cheaper" and then go on to say it's because "you can do your own maintenance". Not for me. If you ever come over i'll show you my lawnmower as a prime example of why i don't think i should maintain my own aircraft!

 

If you're interest is primarily in flying, you value your own safety and you've no interest in spending countless hours fiddling/fixing then GA is the option. That said if I could find a LAME willing to maintain a RA aircraft to GA standards (and sign off as such) then it would look a lot better for me. I started doing up a 1968 Beetle when I was 19. At the age of 31 I finally figured out that i'd rather be driving the damn thing then sitting there up to my elbows in grease with no skin on my knuckles swearing at a lump of inanimate metal... Each to their own in that regard.

 

I'd recommend a Cherokee 140 in that bracket also. More power, considerably more carrying capacity and pretty much the same price. All factory corrosion proofed with no spar life limits. If you can find one maintained by a reputable LAME then you can be pretty confident it's in good flying order. As a few LAME's have pointed out to me the old Lycomings can fail but they'll give you plenty of notice that they're on the way out. You'll pick one up with a half-life engine for $30-40k. Keep it rated night VFR instead of IFR and you'll save a fair bit come maintenance time.

 

 

[facthunter]

Dunno who told you they ( the Cherokees) were factory corrosion proofed. The later ones are better but the early Cherokees are quite bad. The Commanche range is the one that is well corrosion proofed and has a good life of airframe. They have a full flying tail which is efficient but needs to be kept an eye on . There is a Commanche club and some of the airframes have very high hours on them.

 

Something happened at the Piper factory. I think it was flooded out and after it was rebuilt the range was redesigned and to my view the Seneca's and Cherokees were not a patch on the types they replaced.. Nev

 

 

[68volksy]

All the Cherokees were dipped at the factory according to Piper and a couple of old LAME's. The old ones we fly have certainly seemed to hold up well. Old mouseketeers however...

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Not for me. If you ever come over i'll show you my lawnmower as a prime example of why i don't think i should maintain my own aircraft!

Post of the year material that!

I have a new lawn mower, perhaps I should only be looking at new aircraft!

 

 

[facthunter]

Well keep checking them 68 volksy. I've personally seen many of them having the spar behind the wing tanks replaced because you could scratch it away with a paddle pop stick, and no sign of any primer. Nev

 

 

[Guernsey]

Hi Pete, I started in RAA but after an engine failure after only 280 hours in a brand new aircraft I decided to go to GA. I recently bought a Cessna 172M in excellent condition, it took a bit of looking and traveling to find but it was worth it. The engine is the o320-e2d with an STC for MOGAS, and are well known for their reliability. The aircraft is a joy to fly, we mainly go touring and it is perfectly suited to that role. As for the "dreaded annual" costing "many thousands of dollars" this does not have to be the case, do your homework, find the right LAME (even if you have to fly a few hours to get to a good one) and learn about your aircraft and what you can do yourself. I now have an aircraft I am confident in, I can put two fold up bikes in the back, I can fly into a city airport if I wish all for very little more than the cost of running a J230.

What happened to your Jabiru engine which caused it to fail?

 

Alan.

 

 

[old man emu]

Dunno who told you they ( the Cherokees) were factory corrosion proofed. The later ones are better but the early Cherokees are quite bad. Nev

Quite correct. No one really thought that the Cherokees would be still flying 40+ years after they were first built, so they were not corrosion proofed. A Cherokee 140 is pretty gutless. They are really only for two medium built people. They were intended as basic trainers to compete with the C150.

 

That having been said, if your flying revolves around you and the missus going for weekend fly-aways with a couple of overnight bags, I suppose a 140 would fill the bill.

 

As for the Annual costing "many thousands of dollars", a privately owned plane such as these might be pushed to do 50 hours per year, so if your plane is up to scratch, then the annual will be fairly straight forward. We allow 8 man hours for the engine and eight man hours for the airframe, plus filters, fluids and consumables. For that you would be looking at about $1700-1800.

 

Be warned, though. The first time you bring the plane to your LAME for an Annual, you might find yourself hit pretty hard because a decent LAME will go over the plane with a fine toothed comb so that he really gets acquainted with it, and fixes up any matters that might have been missed in previous inspections.

 

As the owner of the airplane it is YOUR responsibility to know what ADs apply to your aircraft; which are recurrent, and which are one-offs. You also need to know when your instruments are due for inspection (Inst 8/9), or your radios have to be looked at (Rad 43/47). It really isn't up to your LAME to go hunting through ADs and SBs to find out what is applicable to your aircraft. (This can take several hours, and it would be reasonable for a LAME to charge you for this time)

 

Caveat emptor: if you don't get a pre-purchase inspection by a LAME who is

 

1. experienced with Cherokees (or any other type that you consider buying), and preferably,

 

2. is the LAME who is going to maintain it for you,

 

then the very heavy outlays you will have to make to get your new toy airworthy will far outstrip the money you might pay for the pre-purchase.

 

OME

 

 

[winsor68]

If you were to have all your Ra-Aus Aircraft work done by a Level 2 for 12 months what would you expect to pay?

 

 

[68volksy]

If you were to have all your Ra-Aus Aircraft work done by a Level 2 for 12 months what would you expect to pay?

I'd like to pose a similar question (hope it's not too far off-topic):

 

Does anyone have an aircraft that is GA registered and maintained but which could be RA registered and maintained by the owner? Do we have someone who maintains such an aircraft themselves? Might be a good chance to actually see the difference in cost between the two. I'd ask owner-maintainers who keep very good records (receipts) if possible.