Costs of owning ......

[kgwilson]

The Rotax 912 is a very good engine despite the complexity and plumbing. The 912 ULS likewise but not as reliable as the 80HP 912. A friend with a Bushcat said to me he'd like a bit more power for some of the short tight strips he flies into & does not want to go to a 914  due to some reported troubles with it. My Jab 3300A is also a very good engine and is simple and easy to maintain. Oil & filter every 25 hours for $45.00. I like the direct drive compared to reduction drive, air cooling and the fact that all the horses can be used all the time if required compared to 5 minutes max with the ULS. Also most 3300As produce 125-127 HP on the dyno even though rated at 120HP. The Jab engines got a bad reputation which was ill deserved at the whim of a couple of ex RAA people who joined CASA, now departed.

 

All engines are man made & can fail. All engines go through their lifecycle with improvements made when components fail to perform as they should. All engines should be maintained to the manufacturers specifications. The local flying schools Jab engines are maintained this way and all make TBO. None are overhauled because a brand new engine is cheaper.

 

Everyone has their biases. I have faith in my engine but am aware that it could, like any other engine fail at some point. I like the power I have and the sound of the 6 is music to my ears.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Skippy, 

 

Nope, only use avgas when I have no other option, to me oil is cheap and so are spark plugs.

 

Can’t for the of life of me let the oil go to 100 hrs it is dirty enough a 50 in my book.

 

plugs, I have let them go to about 150 on the odd occasion, I mean realistically you could probably get 300 or more out of them if you go by how many miles people do in cars in them.

 

Each to our own I guess, I can afford it at this point in time.

 

What I don’t agree on but abide by is the bullish!t hose change every 5 years, that is a con imo.

 

Hi Alf,

 

We have much in (Rotax) common.

 

Like you I do an oil change at 50 hrs (makes me feel good). I leave the filter to 100 hrs. The oil appears, only slightly darker than new and to still be in very good condition - should get an analysis or two done to be a tad more objective.

 

The plug interval of 200 hrs works for me. Never had a dud plug and even if I did, there are 7 more to keep the fan turning. Old plugs have always looked good when I remove them. No visual wear/damage. Any suggestions on a second life for Rotax plugs?

 

The 5 year rubber is, I agree, somewhat "over kill" but perversely I actually enjoy doing it. I keep all my old hoses for using on ground based equipment.

 

I always do my 5 year replacements when a major service is due, so it becomes a nose to tail maintenance/check/adjustment exercise - I look forward to it, take at least 2-3 days , to glean the last erg of pleasure/satisfaction. 

 

 

[Downunder]

As the Rotax engine oil also lubricates the gearbox (gears, bearings and clutches) you probably save money on repairs long term by replacing oil at 50 hrs.

 

And in my opinion it REALLY looks like it needs replacing then.

 

Rotax only need to get it to 2000 hrs to complete their end of the purchase and 100hr oil changes may get it there.

 

However, I'm hoping for FAR MORE than 2000 out of mine so I'll keep up the 50 or less oil change intervals.

 

Oil filter is done at 100......

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Just speculating:

 

Aircraft/airframe type may have an indirect impact on oil condition at 50 hrs.

 

My Zephyr is a fairly light weight, slippy composite, so when flying X country - I cruise at 4800 - 5200 rpm tending toward the lower. This gives me an economy cruise of  sub13L/hr@100 knots (one up).

 

I would expect heavier or higher drag aircraft to have a a significantly higher cruise rpm and corresponding  fuel consumption - I would suggest the amount of fuel you process through your engine , over a given time, will directly impact on the degree of oil contamination .

 

So my oil still looks a pretty good clear light brown at 50 hrs, another aircraft situation it may be black as.

 

 

[Kenlsa]

Yes Bruce they are.

 

But you get what you pay for i guess.

 

yes a Rotax valve cost $240 bucks and a Jab one $40, but the Rotax one will do more or less 5,000 hours compared to 500 for the Jab.

 

It is my understanding that the gen 4 Jab valves are now made in South America (can't remember country) by the same factory that make the Rotax valves.

 

Ken

 

 

[facthunter]

 Skippy,   yes . Fuel  burn would be a better indication than flight hours for oil change.

 

   Also  Rotax engines are NOT magic.  An exhaust valve has a fairly hard time in all engines.They operate at above red heat and even hotter when turbo charged. It also doesn't matter WHERE something is made these days as long as the Quality control is effective and the metal spec is right for the job.  

 

 5,000 hours equals about 500,000 kms  in a car and few cars will get that out of their valves  and still perform as when new even though they have a real easy time compared with an aero engine. One would expect a bit better life in a liquid cooled engine but if you upped the output /litre it would reduce.  You should replace such parts long before they have a chance of failing, because the consequences of a failed valve is always serious.. Rusty and pitted stems happen as well on lesser used motors .Nev

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

I am doing a big bore conversion on a 2015  Rotax 912ULS its ex flying school 2000hrs. Reasonable nick inside...no fretting of the crankcase. Crank is fine and journals are  good. The gearbox was serviced at 1000 hrs but not of course at 2000 hrs so that needs to be done and is being done. The cost of parts though is horrendous through the dealer for all of this. We have found  most of all the parts required for the engine and the gearbox bearings that are used and are either the same or better spec than original. Orings and seals etc. Valves are being replaced by aftermarket source and most likely the same factory that makes the rotax ones. The oil pump is worn and will be made perfect again as we have found where to buy the gear set. The housing needs to be machined at the bottom to make it flat again and the top plate then machined so the clearances are the same as a new pump. The savings are literally many many thousands of dollars to achieve exactly the same or actually even better rebuild

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I am doing a big bore conversion on a 2015  Rotax 912ULS its ex flying school 2000hrs. Reasonable nick inside...no fretting of the crankcase. Crank is fine and journals are  good. The gearbox was serviced at 1000 hrs but not of course at 2000 hrs so that needs to be done and is being done. The cost of parts though is horrendous through the dealer for all of this. We have found  most of all the parts required for the engine and the gearbox bearings that are used and are either the same or better spec than original. Orings and seals etc. Valves are being replaced by aftermarket source and most likely the same factory that makes the rotax ones. The oil pump is worn and will be made perfect again as we have found where to buy the gear set. The housing needs to be machined at the bottom to make it flat again and the top plate then machined so the clearances are the same as a new pump. The savings are literally many many thousands of dollars to achieve exactly the same or actually even better rebuild

 

Very interested in this - if you are willing, please advise all details.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

Skippy ring me sometime  0408724272

 

 

[alf jessup]

 Skippy,   yes . Fuel  burn would be a better indication than flight hours for oil change.

 

   Also  Rotax engines are NOT magic.  An exhaust valve has a fairly hard time in all engines.They operate at above red heat and even hotter when turbo charged. It also doesn't matter WHERE something is made these days as long as the Quality control is effective and the metal spec is right for the job.  

 

 5,000 hours equals about 500,000 kms  in a car and few cars will get that out of their valves  and still perform as when new even though they have a real easy time compared with an aero engine. One would expect a bit better life in a liquid cooled engine but if you upped the output /litre it would reduce.  You should replace such parts long before they have a chance of failing, because the consequences of a failed valve is always serious.. Rusty and pitted stems happen as well on lesser used motors .Nev

 

Nev,

 

I’d say 5000 hours in a car would more likely be around 200,000 - 250,000 kms as cars idle at lights, do a lot of time at 40 & 60kph and not many do 100kph for the majority of their life.

 

 

[facthunter]

Depends whether you use it to go to the station and as a shopping trolley or it sits on freeways commuting.. I know VW thought 550.000 for a Transporter on deliveries was a good life for valves. A lot of car engines are not actually in very good condition but keep going in lighter duties for years after they drop off their peek. Unless they blow a head gasket, which is often their fate. Nev

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Is been mentioned before (probably many times) however for the cash strapped (or just sensible) aspiring owner, syndication/partnership is a way of getting into a much better aircraft (even a new one) at a lower/same cost.

 

It's not a "free lunch" there are many pitfalls but with care (establishing well thought out  DOCUMENTED rules, including exit of a member - DO NOT HAVE UNDOCUMENTED UNDERSTANDINGS) it can work well. There are many excellent models out there.

 

The reality is that after the "honeymoon" passion has wained, individual pilots will probably do way less than 100 hrs /annum - hard to justify sole ownership at this rate.

 

Although in the UK where the laws are slightly different, I have been i two syndicates - one a PA28 and now the TB20GT. There are advantages and disadvantages to syndicates but I find for the amount of flying I do, which is never enough, they are a great compromise. There is a CAA limit of 20 people (directlry or indirectly) in the syndicate. Both of my syndicates comprised of 8 equal shareholders and so far (touch wood), they have worked out very well. There is NO documented agreement in either syndicate. I know it is probably best practice to have a documented agreement, but this can be sometimes too rigid when things come up that are unexpected.

 

The rules in both syndicates were very similar:

 

- Look after the aircraft - don't abuse it as the syndicate reserve the right on a majority vote to boot you out of the syndicate and sell your share on your behalf

 

- There was a time limit on bookings (the PA28 was 14 days, the TB20 is 12 days for some reason). Use it, but don't abuse it or you will have your key taken off you for a period of time

 

- If taking the a/c away for a longer period of time, don't under use it.

 

- If you decide to sell your share, the syndicate have the right to vet any prosepctive purchaser. The PA28 group didn't bother; the TB20 group went through my log book with a fine-tooth comb.

 

Of course, without written rules, it can become messy if just one person in the syndicate doesn't quite work out, however, it is clear that on a majority vote, a decision of the Syndicate is binding. They booted out someone who belly-landed the plane (that is how I came to get my share). The one issue with this is that under UK law, if a buyer can't be found willing to pay a fair value within a reasonable amount of time, the seller can force the rest of the syndicate to put the whole a/c up for sale at a fair value.

 

Of course a documented agreement doesn't mean the syndicate is going to be a good one. I looked at a TB10 syndicate that did have everythig documented, and after looking at how regimented it was, I decided against it. There was no room for flexibility without going through the syndicate treasurer; For example, the amount and dates of bookings one could make were fixed and even if the plane was not booked on a day that was allocated to someone else, you couldn't check with that someone else - it had to go through the treasurer. And you couldn't book more than 2 weeks in advance, which as I pointed out to them was stupid as the days allocated to each pilot could be calculated ad infinitum. Needless to say, I didn't even bother with a test-flight.

 

In both syndicates I have been in, if a plane was booked when I really, really wanted it, I would simply send the person who had the plane booked an email to ask that should they not really need it or are not likely to actually go flying, can I have it.. And I had received similar emails to which I have happily relinquished my booking more often than not.

 

The success or failure of a syndiate depends on the people in the syndicate and the Syndicate leader/treasurer. No amount of documentation will really make a difference as if there are a majority of syndicate holders that push something through, they can and will change the documented agreement anyway. In both syndicates I have joined, I had known (not as mates, but either through flying or work) one of the syndicate members and both were pretty honest about the positives and negatives of their specific syndicate. I have heard horror stories through for both documented and undocumented syndicates.

 

Another benefit of being in a syndicate is it frees up more captical to be in another syndicate. That way, say you do a bit of aeros and a bit of touring, you can have a share in each type of a/c and be less concerned about getting an a/c designed on major compromises.

 

Of course, the disadvantage is that should say one person have the majority share, what they say will go... in theory even to the point they could vote to have you sell your share to them for a peppercorn.

 

Trust is a huge component of shareoplanes and apart from the usual things to look out for (condition of a/c, historical availability, engine/maintenance fund, damage history, etc), assessing the people in the syndicate as compatible with your standards/modus operandi is equally or probably most important.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Duplicate post deleted

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Hi Jerry,

 

No offence but I could not disagree more.

 

Verbal agreements are a falling out waiting to happen - true if all parties remain on good terms it may not but this is good luck not sensible planning. 

 

Your observations regarding rigidity/ lack of flexibility in the more documented syndicates  is a cultural issue, not all well managed syndicate will be like this. Look for a better syndicate.

 

Documented rules protect you and the other members.

 

 

[kgwilson]

Jerry,

 

When you say you have no written rules I assume that excludes the 4 rules you noted at the beginning. I just wonder how maintenance, hangarage, landing, fuel costs and other fees, insurance etc is arranged and if you damage the aircraft I assume that you pay or you pay the insurance excess. Eg, if you fuel the aircraft up then don't fly as the weather is crap does the next person get to fly free? Are these sorts of issues based on gentlemens agreements?

 

 

[onetrack]

One of the greatest problems with undocumented agreements is that they rely totally on a, "he said - she said" basis. And therein lies the greatest source of interpersonal squabbles - disputes over what was said, and what was understood.

 

Written agreements can also be a cause of disputes, as people find loopholes, and try to use them to their advantage.

 

But at least with written agreements, you have the opportunity to put in writing - with maximum clarity - the processes and steps to be taken, in every foreseeable event, that adversely impacts on any of the partners to the agreement.

 

Of course, there are always unforeseeable events that can cause disputes - but extensive examination and discussion of events that have happened to others, which caused friction, and disputes - can ensure that 99% of foreseeable adverse events are covered.

 

And at the end of the day, as my insurance broker told me, many years ago - insurance and insurance claims are all about trust and good faith. If you enter into an agreement with someone who turns out to be untrustworthy, difficult to get along with, and who doesn't understand "good faith" in transactions, then nothing you put in writing, will ever overcome that poor attitude.

 

As a result, one must choose partners in agreements wisely, and understand their personality.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

@skippydiesel, no offence taken.. I am not advocating not having a written agreement - but I am advocating that there has to be a good degree of trust in any syndicate  - with or without a written setof rules in place - and therefore a good amount of time should be spent assessing whether or not the syndicate as a whole is compatible with oneself. Of course, the UK and Aus have different laws around this- and a knowledge of the law would be required to understand the enforceability of any such set of rules as well.. It would all come down to evidence in a dispute and often, written sets of rules are complimented with implied provisions as well, etc etc.. What I am saying, I suppose is that the written set of rules will not necesarily cover everything nor necessarily be entirely enforceable and they may be unreasonable (some syndicates here have restrictions on a member being able to sell but often they are not enforceable whether they are written or verbal).

 

@kgwilson, the only place those rules are written that I know of are in this thread. When I first heard of the share coming up, I arranged a meeting with the person in the syndicate I know and a quick check flight (I didn't need to do this with the first syndicate as I was a passenger in a trip to France in the plane and I know the syndicate member really well). After the flight, he ran me through those rules.. Even I was a little concerned, so we spent about an hour of me rapid firing questions to which he answered or deferred until the formal meeting where everyone had a chance to assess me and I them. As I mentioned, for this one, they all turned up and the "el presidento"of the syndicate stated it was open slather - feel free to ask anythiung of them and I was to allow anything (aviation related) to be asked of me. It was pretty clear this was a fairly good syndicate - one of the factors is that 6 of the 8 had been in the same syndicate (owning different planes) for 20 years. I had a good feeling about the syndicate and when the major rules were verbally confirmed, el presidento asked around the table if the syndicate members were happy to have me in and asked if I was happy to be in. Once agreed, they gave me they key and asked me to pay the purchase price when I was ready...

 

The other rule was no fly solo until checked out by the syndicate instructor - who, as it turns out is a real sky god - ex Hunter fast Jet jick, Red Arrows instructor and went on to become a doctor and professor of aviation medicine.

 

Syndicates typically work on a monthly payment to cover fixed costs - such as hangarage, insurance, etc. Then there is a fixed hourly rate - this will be either wet or dry; I have only been in a syndicate where it is the wet rate. If we full up at our home airfield (the truck comes along and does it), we sign for it on account and don't pay. If we fill up away from the home airfield, we keep the receipts, write our name on it and pop it in an envelope and the amount is deducted from the hourly charge we have to pay. We pay a fixed hourly rate that has a slight uplift over the expected hourly fuel costs to build a maintenance/engine fund... However, like fuel, if we have to have emergency maintenance done and cover the cost, it is deducted from what we would have to pay based on the hours we fly.

 

If the engine fund doesn't maintenance, a cash call is made to all members for the amount owed in proportion of the share one owns. Since we all owe 1/8th, we are required to contribute 1/8th. This does slightly favour the pilots flying higher hours, but the reality is, unless something big hits the plane for which there is no maintenance funds, it is rare to have a cash call and if it turns out not being cheaper than renting, it won't purely be the cash call that does it.

 

We are lucky with our syndicate as one of our members is the head of engineering for an airline out here and is FAA licensed.. so he does all of our work, too. I am still waiting for the P&W engine to be fitted, though ?

 

If we are required to make an insurance claim, legally we only have to contribute in proportion to our ownership as these aer joint and several ownership models. However, we have an agreement that the person who bingles it pays the excess - currently £250 - so won't break the bank (as an FYI, our hull value is I think £150K and insurance is around £1300 from memory).

 

Cheers,

 

J

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

@onetrack, I get your point and if it were a syndicate of 2 or 3, I would probably want something in writing. But I woud find it difficult to believe that say 6 of 8 would lie or deny a rule if it came to it. Most of the stuff is covered by law, anyway and it is the things like does one have to clean the plane afterwards, the costs/charges, the exit process, etc that are pretty variable. For example, if you lose your job and can't pay the monthlies, etc.. It all changes by vote, anyway... Changes are usually confirmed in email, so I supppse this is a form of written agreement, but there is no central documented agreement.

 

I think the other thing is syndicates have bee a common way of owning planes here for a very long time that it has matured a bit

 

 

[kgwilson]

The best syndicates I have heard of are those where there are a couple of keen pilots and a bunch of sleeping members which always makes me wonder why sleeping members bother to be part of it in the first place.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Jerry - No agreement will anticipate every eventuality - to try and do this probably ends up with the regimented/rigid systems you referred to erly on. A good agreement has flexibility (as determined by the majority) built in,

 

Good agreements are usually a set of behavioural guidelines (including dispute resolution & exit rules). 

 

As others have pointed out good syndicates/partnerships are those where everyone gets along pretty well. Clearly no formalised agreement can "fix" a dysfunctional relationship(s).

 

Problems - often (but not exclusively) as a result of a third part suddenly becoming involved eg a partner dies/becomes incapacitated and a relative wants the aircraft share sold/ money now!

 

 

[Downunder]

The best syndicates I have heard of are those where there are a couple of keen pilots and a bunch of sleeping members which always makes me wonder why sleeping members bother to be part of it in the first place.

 

There is a local active pilot and aircraft owner. He has always rented space and never bought or built a hangar.

 

long term, owning a hanger is cheaper and he had the funds so it baffled me. 

 

Then I found out there was another partner in the aircraft. I had seen him once in 5 yrs......

 

Obviously this bloke was paying half the hangarage so for the active pilot renting was good value.....

 

 

[spacesailor]

People can & have bought aircraft at the beginning  (rose coloured glasses stage ), then Need someone to help with those excessive costs.

 

I would like someone to get my HB up into that "blue yonder ",  I can't afford it any more, but still love, to sit in it & dream.

 

One day Imust take a trip to see the other HB owner in the next suburb now I'm walking again.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

@skippydiesel, agree the problems are usually the entry of a third party and I think it will test the syndicate agreement, written or not. In the first syndicate, we had a new member who was a pain.. He didn't do anything terribly wrong, but kept on doing minor things wrong to the point where it was just frustrating.. Things like overtightening the dipstick all the time or forgetting to lock the doors; not properly stowing stuff afterwards, etc. Not stuff that would compromise the safety of the flight, but after a while, the other syndicate members were getting mightilly peeved. In the end, a meeting was called in which he was invited and it was discussed. It was agreed that he would either shape up or the syndicate would use the engine fund to purchase back his share at a slight depreciation and then on-sell to someone else. Never needed to withdraw a penny - magically he tidied up his act.

 

In the same syndicate, there were a two members who were peeved.. We found some skin corrosion in a 100 hourly and some of the syndicate wanted to simply have it patched (at a cost of c. £2k from memory), while others wanted to do a full bare metal respray (at £17k). Now, the only rule that would be in a written agreement about this sort of stuff would be that it would be put to a vote and a majority (or possibly qualified majority) would decide. From memory, 6 of the 8 voted for a full bare metal respray (I was in the 6). One of those vented their frustration quite robustly.  So even existing members that have different outlooks will occasionally clash..

 

I am not saying no to central written rules for syndicates - of course they work. I am just saying it doesn't necessarily have to be written - it will depend on one's comfort zone.

 

As an FYI, here is a share for sale: https://afors.com/aircraftView/48214

 

It should be perfect for me as it is at the local airfield and would make an ideal second shareoplane or even the main one,, But after 5 minutes talking to a previous share seller, I decided the syndicate was not for me,.. too many rules...

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

People can & have bought aircraft at the beginning  (rose coloured glasses stage ), then Need someone to help with those excessive costs.

 

I would like someone to get my HB up into that "blue yonder ",  I can't afford it any more, but still love, to sit in it & dream.

 

One day Imust take a trip to see the other HB owner in the next suburb now I'm walking again.

 

spacesailor

 

You are not wrong, sir...

 

We also have the concept of non-equity syndicates, which are basically private rental agreements where those renting pay a fixed monthly fee in return for rentl rates substantially cheaper than the local flight school. Often, people think it is the renter who can't afford flying.. I had a look at a couple of these and in both cases it was exactly as Spacey described...