Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1659922
My guesstimate is as follows. Looking at the proposed A/D the FAA seem to reckon about $550 assuming all is OK. So in UK terms I reckon that will be
i double the number and
ii use GBP for $,
iii then add VAT,
iv then round to the next whole Aviation Unit [where 1 Aviation Unit =£1000],

so about 2 grand.

If a PA28 passes, I think its value will increase by that amount as the number of failed aircraft will make the airworthy ones rarer and thus more valuable. If it fails, basically you have a box of bits.

I'm in a tricky position as my 1966 Cherokee 140 is for sale at the moment. I won't link as it would offend the mods, but if you look on a well known website with
Aircraft FOR Sale
you might find it.

I suspect it may now be a bit more difficult to sell than I had hoped.
#1659993
tomshep wrote:Out of interest, What would the inspection be likely to cost? PA28s seem to cost from about £15K upwards so at what point do the values of engine, prop and avionics effectively scrap the airframe?



There are no rules about what size repair bill will scrap any aircraft if the manufacturer has not specified an airframe service life. There are many factors.
e.g. condition of the rest of that aircraft, current/forecast utilisation, availability of alternative aircraft, condition of alternative aircraft, purchase/lease/rental price of alternative aircraft, historical significance (does not apply to PA28s...), sentimental value, ... how many people/entities actually own the aircraft and split the bills and their personal financial situation.

Owners of these old aircraft still spend lots of good money on engine overhauls (20k), resprays, avionics, upholstery.

There are some analogies with people that keep old cars running rather than replacing them every 2-5 years. The money I save by not replacing my car pays for my flying.

People have quite personal and rational/irrational views as to what something is worth and what is economic to maintain.
T67M, Kittyhawk, FrankS liked this
#1660004
Lockhaven wrote:I can see a lot of old Piper aircraft suddenly going to that big hangar in the sky :(


I have been thinking about this.

Look at the aircraft for sale adverts.... there is little for sale in this category and nothing similar that is less than 20 years old. Similarly for comparable Cessnas. (There are reasons why some pilots fly Piper/Cessna rather than the LAA types so not everyone will scrap and switch to LAA types).

I did see a 2016 example in europe for $500,000.

Piper brochure prices for brand new aircraft:
Arrow $490,000.
Archer Tx $369,770
Archer DX $430,795

With those numbers I think some aircraft could get scrapped .... but I think many will get fixed due to lack of alternatives.

Given that GA always seems to be struggling financially, it would be nice if Piper/Cessna would change their business model to sell brand new aircraft at a much lower price point and make up the difference with higher volume of sales such that when a big bill came up (e.g. £20k engine overhaul) it would be a no brainer for the owner to buy a new aircraft instead. e.g. For an aircraft doing 400 hrs a year, price it to get a new one every 4-6 years, and the resale of the old one will ripple through the owners of the really old aircraft. It would do away with many of the issues that everyone has maintaining aircraft that are typically at least 30 yrs old.
Newer looking aircraft also look more appealing to any nervous passengers or those looking to start a new hobby as a pilot.
#1660010
Why? If a manufacturer can make £200,000 by constructing one, why would it want to make four to gain the same profit. More staff who are skilled, more ordering and supplier letdowns, more money tied up in stock, more product liability likelihoods. No, they would like to double the price and make half as many. The market is pretty finite.
#1660011
You could start by comparing a modern aircraft to a 150. A C42 will cost about half of its new price to fully renovated after 5000+ hours on the training circuit. About £30 thousand. Six quid an hour . Despite the far greater perceived longevity, the costs to own and operate are going to be guite a bit higher and the cheaper aircraft will be simpler and much cheaper to repair.
#1660029
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:There are some analogies with people that keep old cars running rather than replacing them every 2-5 years.

I've never understood why anyone should want to do that. I buy new cars and run them until they're not worth repairing any more, then scrap them. The previous one lasted IIRC 13 years. The current one is at 15 years and still going strong.
Paul_Sengupta, Nick, DarrenL liked this
#1660034
tomshep wrote:You could start by comparing a modern aircraft to a 150. A C42 will cost about half of its new price to fully renovated after 5000+ hours on the training circuit. About £30 thousand. Six quid an hour . Despite the far greater perceived longevity, the costs to own and operate are going to be guite a bit higher and the cheaper aircraft will be simpler and much cheaper to repair.


I agree a big bill for spar replacement might make some reconsider the options. Note I did caveat my earlier post by saying there are reasons why some pilots fly Piper/Cessna rather than the LAA types so not everyone will scrap and switch to LAA types (which I meant to include microlights and ultralights). Typical reasons being useful load, or IMC.
#1660084
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:Note I did caveat my earlier post by saying there are reasons why some pilots fly Piper/Cessna rather than the LAA types so not everyone will scrap and switch to LAA types (which I meant to include microlights and ultralights). Typical reasons being useful load, or IMC.

So it's still the case that I can't wander into a flying club and rent an LAA aircraft to take three passengers for some playing in clouds?
#1660161
Gertie wrote:
GAFlyer4Fun wrote:Note I did caveat my earlier post by saying there are reasons why some pilots fly Piper/Cessna rather than the LAA types so not everyone will scrap and switch to LAA types (which I meant to include microlights and ultralights). Typical reasons being useful load, or IMC.

So it's still the case that I can't wander into a flying club and rent an LAA aircraft to take three passengers for some playing in clouds?


I am probably wrong, but I think most LAA types are 2 seaters or very old classic 4 seaters (and at that age they could have the maintenance issues that are the subject of this thread).

RV-10 is a 4 seater with a 230hp or 260hp lycoming, with a usable load of around 486kg for the heavier engine. I am not aware of any available for hire at a club. Vans website suggests still have to build the aircraft yourself (or find someone to build it). The kit costs $48780 or QuickBuild for $62,105. Tax? Import Duty?

So from a club rental perspective an RV10 is an unfamiliar type to those flying Pipers/Cessnas, and the club would probably insist on conversion training and currency check-out. In summary, unlikely to be able to wander into a flying club to rent an LAA type to lift 3 passengers..... even without the IMC bit.

Although not an LAA type, just had a thought about a 4 seat Diamond DA40 - useful load of 900lbs / 409kg, Looking for prices, used 2004 example $189,000, a 2010 example $265,000.

With these price points, I can see many PA28s having spars repaired.
#1660296
This caused me a minor panic when I read it.

After calming down, I re-read the propsed AD.

My Archer II has about 4500 hours on it - 5000 is the magic number, or is it.

Turns out that no it isnt but yes it is - the 5000 is the number, but they are not real hours but calculated by the formula in the proposed AD. My 4500hr 1976 Archer II is by the formula a 2000 hour 1976 Archer II and so I will be sleeping easy tonight.

Seems this will be an issue for ex flight school and rentals with 10,000 hours or for those unfortunate enought not to have all of the airplanes logs.

Seems got a five year old Archer and lost one log - well the AD will apply to you, least ways that's how it is written, but it is subject to change.
#1660313
Josh wrote:Better than having the wings fall off in the circuit while you’re going about your business :shock:

The accident that prompted this AD was pretty unpleasant.


I wasn't objecting to the AD, but observing that it could have implications for GA in general - not just on PA28/32 operators.

Hopefully the issue which resulted in the accident will be found to be uncommon.