Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By PhilS
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912507
Hi,

I was wondering if anyone could share any recent experience of the difference in running costs associated with maintaining a Rotax-based certified aircraft vs a Permit to Fly aircraft of similar type, e.g. Bristell/Sportcruiser?

Many thanks, Phil.
User avatar
By TheFarmer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912531
Hi

I think your question hasn't had much response,. because it's not entirely clear to be honest. :)

The difference in maintenance costs between a Permit Rotax machine and a "C of A" one is basically the same as between (say) a Cessna 120 on a Permit and a Cessna 140 on a C of A. The only real difference is labour costs.

A Permit machine owner can do his/her own maintenance, and the costs are solely the parts and the oils. If a C of A machine goes to a CAMO for exactly the same work, it will incur a labour charge of about £50 per hour (I don't know the exact rates these days). You'll also be charged for time doing paperwork etc too.

If I wanted a specific Rotax powered type that was only available in "C of A" form, would it put me off buying it? No, it wouldn't. The Rotax 9*** engine is a reliable engine, and is generally fitted to a young airframe that therefore shouldn't trigger any nasty corrosion or age-related surprises. So, your C of A maintenance costs should be relatively sensible compared to (say) a 40 year old metal airframe that's been sitting outside since 1974, and done 11,000 landings.

Hope that helps.
PhilS liked this
#1912545
If you are capable of doing all your own maintenance work then the cost savings, Permit v Cof A, are substantial!
If you are just going to hand the aircraft to a maintenance organisation every time you need something doing, Annual etc., then the difference isn't going to be that great although the CAMO paperwork will be a bit more costly more than the Permit paperwork.
Aircraft flight costs will be much lower of course with a Rotax than flying behind a Lycoming/Continental. Expect 15-18litres per hr of Mogas burn from a 100hp Rotax as aposed to say an 0-320 Lycoming burning 30'ish litres of Avgas at todays silly prices.

I personally changed from sole ownership of a CofA machine back in 2005 to a Rotax engined aircraft due to impending retirement and I certainly could not have affforded to continue to fly and retain sole ownership as I do now if I had not transfered to a Permit machine carrying out all my own maintenance.
Loco parentis, PhilS liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912548
I think in summary:

Option 1

PtF - you put in all the work yourself with a friendly inspector
vs.
C of A - you put in all the work yourself with a friendly licensed engineer

Virtually no difference in costs.

Option 2

PtF - you hand over the aeroplane to a maintenance organisation for all the work
vs.
C of A - you hand over the aeroplane to a maintenance organisation for all the work

Virtually no difference in costs.

Option 3

PtF - you put in all the work yourself with a friendly inspector
vs.
C of A - you hand over the aeroplane to a maintenance organisation for all the work

Then maybe £2k-£3k difference a year or maybe more if any substantial work needs to be done. The caveat on 1 and 2 is that some certified parts can be much more expensive than non certified parts if the aeroplane design incorporated such parts (such as Renault 12 windscreen wiper motors for the flaps or such like!).
PhilS liked this
By MikeW
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912582
With a certified Rotax you have to comply with their maintenance schedule e.g. replacing all rubber items* every 5 years. With Rotax supplying certified parts that's quite a bill, and then you add labour.

*all hoses, carburetter sockets, carb diaphragms and the fuel pump - that's upwards of £500 for a start, just parts
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By PhilS
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912619
TheFarmer wrote:Hi

I think your question hasn't had much response,. because it's not entirely clear to be honest. :)

The difference in maintenance costs between a Permit Rotax machine and a "C of A" one is basically the same as between (say) a Cessna 120 on a Permit and a Cessna 140 on a C of A. The only real difference is labour costs.

A Permit machine owner can do his/her own maintenance, and the costs are solely the parts and the oils. If a C of A machine goes to a CAMO for exactly the same work, it will incur a labour charge of about £50 per hour (I don't know the exact rates these days). You'll also be charged for time doing paperwork etc too.

If I wanted a specific Rotax powered type that was only available in "C of A" form, would it put me off buying it? No, it wouldn't. The Rotax 9*** engine is a reliable engine, and is generally fitted to a young airframe that therefore shouldn't trigger any nasty corrosion or age-related surprises. So, your C of A maintenance costs should be relatively sensible compared to (say) a 40 year old metal airframe that's been sitting outside since 1974, and done 11,000 landings.

Hope that helps.


Many thanks, this is very helpful. Some of the aircraft I am interested in are attainable in both CofA and Ptf versions, such as the Bristell or Sportcruiser, and I was wondering if I opted for a factory built one, which would have the advantage of Night VFR capability, would the maintenance costs be substantially higher.
By PhilS
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912620
Shoestring Flyer wrote:I personally changed from sole ownership of a CofA machine back in 2005 to a Rotax engined aircraft due to impending retirement and I certainly could not have affforded to continue to fly and retain sole ownership as I do now if I had not transfered to a Permit machine carrying out all my own maintenance.


Thanks, this is exactly where we are at - my wife and I both fly and we are looking for a machine that will meet our needs into our retirement, which isn’t too far away. I think I’ll get myself signed up for a Rotax maintenance course.
By PhilS
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912622
Paul_Sengupta wrote:I think in summary:

Option 1

PtF - you put in all the work yourself with a friendly inspector
vs.
C of A - you put in all the work yourself with a friendly licensed engineer

Virtually no difference in costs.

Option 2

PtF - you hand over the aeroplane to a maintenance organisation for all the work
vs.
C of A - you hand over the aeroplane to a maintenance organisation for all the work

Virtually no difference in costs.

Option 3

PtF - you put in all the work yourself with a friendly inspector
vs.
C of A - you hand over the aeroplane to a maintenance organisation for all the work

Then maybe £2k-£3k difference a year or maybe more if any substantial work needs to be done. The caveat on 1 and 2 is that some certified parts can be much more expensive than non certified parts if the aeroplane design incorporated such parts (such as Renault 12 windscreen wiper motors for the flaps or such like!).


Many thanks, this was very helpful. It sounds like a fairly fresh CofA rotax-based type, shouldn’t be horrendously expensive to maintain. Food for thought!
By PhilS
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912623
GrahamB wrote:Wheover does the maintenance, parts will generally cost more for a certified machine, as most parts will need to be themselves certified/PMA'd, which can carry quite an overhead.


Many thanks, I’m think I’m definitely erring towards Ptf - I’m thinking the benefits of a CofA machine wouldn’t be worth the additional costs for us.
TheFarmer liked this
By PhilS
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912624
MikeW wrote:With a certified Rotax you have to comply with their maintenance schedule e.g. replacing all rubber items* every 5 years. With Rotax supplying certified parts that's quite a bill, and then you add labour.

*all hoses, carburetter sockets, carb diaphragms and the fuel pump - that's upwards of £500 for a start, just parts


Many thanks - so some of the parts have a fixed life on CofA but not on Ptf, or at least not to the same extent?
#1912640
All parts/maintenance on an aircraft on an LAA Permit is based on being 'On Condition' so there are virtually no time or fixed life parts changes unless the LAA issues its version of an Aircraft Directive (AD).
Any Manufacturer Aircraft Service Advisories or Bulletins advising of recommended parts changes and necessary maintenance are therefore basically ignored until, and unless such a time that the LAA tells you that you must carry out the required maintenance or parts change.
The whole ethos of flying and maintaining a LAA Permit aircraft is to keep costs as low as possible hence everything on the aircraft is 'On Condition'.
PhilS liked this
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912642
PhilS wrote:... and I was wondering if I opted for a factory built one, which would have the advantage of Night VFR capability, would the maintenance costs be substantially higher.


Beware, there is a big difference between an aircraft being Night VFR capable and it being cleared for Night VFR.
PhilS liked this