Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1660317
I'm pretty certain my 13000 hr Cherokee 140 will need inspection.

Is anyone aware of a catastrophic wing spar failure issue affecting any PA28s other than Arrows? I've never piloted one, but my experience as a passenger is that the landings, for whatever reason, seem rather more "positive" than those in fixed gear PA28s. I wonder if it is due to a relative lack of damping in the retractable gear compared to the fixed gear versions.

(Cue for lots of Arrow pilots to tell me that every one of their landings are greasers!)
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1660319
It's the flying schools that will be hit the hardest. All there airframes will be high hours and because of the 12 year engine limits it's not financially viable a privately owned low hour airframe and the engine will be over 12 years old.

Plus the 300K price tag for a new aircraft whose running costs are no cheaper than a 40 year old example means that's commercially none viable either.

I suspect a few will get parked if spars need replacing
Last edited by Bathman on Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#1660321
Two things interest me on this thread.

Firstly there seems a number of people worrying about the cost of testing and hoping their aircraft squeaks under the calculated hours. I'd be more worried about a wing parting company and would be shelling out for the testing at the earliest moment (but then I'm not hanging onto flying by my financial fingernails)

And then, is it really half a million for a new Arrow? :shock:

Rob P
#1660523
ArrowStraight wrote:I'm just confused by the method for determining factored service hours, since on most G reg we don't have hundred hour inspections, or does one just count each "second" fifty as a one hundred?

(Of course, we may well decide to inspect anyway-whether mandated or not)


My interpretation of their method was that it recognises that aircraft requiring 100 before annual are much more likely to be used for training purposes, I.e. high number of landings. If you fly less than 100 a year, it “can’t” be a trainer so you get a much smaller factor - 17 times smaller to be precise.

Put another way, they assume you do 17 times more landings per hour flown when used in training than otherwise.
#1660556
Uptimist wrote:
ArrowStraight wrote:they assume you do 17 times more landings per hour flown when used in training than otherwise.


Thats clearly ridiculous. At best you can do 5-6 landings per training hour.

My a/c does approx 170 hours per year, but since my average flight time is greater than 1 hour, I doubt it does more than 120-140 landings per year.
#1660591
Bathman wrote:It's the flying schools that will be hit the hardest. All there airframes will be high hours and because of the 12 year engine limits it's not financially viable a privately owned low hour airframe and the engine will be over 12 years old.

Plus the 300K price tag for a new aircraft whose running costs are no cheaper than a 40 year old example means that's commercially none viable either.

I suspect a few will get parked if spars need replacing


So whoever does buy a 300k aircraft to lease to a flying school, they need to recover the cost of the aircraft investment over a 12 year period, plus any mortgage/loan fees, plus a profit margin? So for an aircraft doing 400 hrs / yr, that could be at least a 62.50 slice of the hourly rental rate without all the usual maintenance and running costs of the aircraft?

Alternatively, if spars are replaced, flying schools could temporarily put the flying rates up 10 or 20 per hour, and a 400 hour per year aircraft will have recovered the cost in a couple of years?

Group owned aircraft situation has a philosophical twist to the maths. Consider the total annual cost of flying their own aircraft compared to renting. The difference typically recovers the share price in a couple of years even if flying just enough every year to keep a licence going, and many have been doing it for such a long time that the amount they have saved in total flying costs over the years compared with renting covers the spar replacement costs. Yes it is still a short term financial pain, but overall the investment in the share has still been beneficial in reducing the total flying cost over N years.
#1660599
Group owned aircraft situation has a philosophical twist to the maths. Consider the total annual cost of flying their own aircraft compared to renting. The difference typically recovers the share price in a couple of years even if flying just enough every year to keep a licence going, and many have been doing it for such a long time that the amount they have saved in total flying costs over the years compared with renting covers the spar replacement costs. Yes it is still a short term financial pain, but overall the investment in the share has still been beneficial in reducing the total flying cost over N years.

I have spent many many multiples more than a typical hourly rental cost by flying through private group ownership.