Question: Pilots who are also A&Ps

Juliet Hotel said:
Of course there isn't. In a word, duh. But your point is pretty meaningless because extremely few people select a model of airplane to buy based simply on the number of seats. Most if not all 4 place kits available today are FAR cheaper to build or purchase built than any certified 4-place aircraft of similar age and performance. So if your answer to that is 'yeah but you can buy a '59 Pacer for $35k so they're cheaper...' well that's a pretty weak argument IMO because the guy that's considering an RV10 build or purchase ain't in the market for a Pacer.
Click to expand...
Well every one is saying it is cheaper to own a E/AB. my point is it isn't.
In order to get into any aircraft the purchase price must be considered. In these days it is a dam poor E/AB that can be bought for what a 150 can be.
And to add you can't buy E/AB parts for less than you can buy Certified parts for. Simply because a Lycoming part is still a Lycoming part. Radios the same thing, appliances same, a Cleveland brake is still a Cleveland brake.
 
All the old men bickering aside, what are your long term plans OP ? Are you planning on a career in aviation after you separate from the military ?



The HVAC maintenance guy in our hospital has an active A&P ticket. He wrenches on his own plane and helps his airport buddies to do owner-maintenance on theirs. Some IAs are more than happy to inspect aircraft in the owners hangar if everything has been taken apart already.
 
Hat Man said:
However, getting an A&P as an air force maintainer is essentially free. All I would need to do is get signed off on jobs in a variety of other fields (which can be done on the job), study for the A&P, take a permissive TDY to take a 2 week crash course, then final test. That crash course can be paid for via military benefits. Which means before I leave my current base, I could acquire an A&P license. I've also heard it's relatively easy for engine mechanics like myself compared to other shops, since propulsion makes up about half of what is needed to get one.
Click to expand...

While its 'free' money wise, you'll still have to put a fair amount of effort into studying for the exam. Much of the A&P is learning how the FAA wants things documented, not necessarily on how it is done right.

Anyway, I've been trying to do some research on the most cost effective method of purchasing and operating a private aircraft. I've been thinking about possibly getting an old, mid or high time Cessna 150 or similar aircraft, due to the very low initial cost. However, obviously these machines will be more maintenance intensive, espescially if they require something like an engine overhaul right off the bat. I've found resources on aproximate cost breakdowns of aircraft like this, however maintenance is basically lumped into one big cost.
Click to expand...

Owning a simple mogas capable certified aircraft like a Cessna 150, Cessna 140 or Cherokee 140 while maintaining it yourself as an A&P is probably the cheapest way overall to fly. The only thing cheaper is an experimental that you built yourself as you can use parts from NAPA and you dont incur the inspection cost from an IA for the annual.

So my question is, when I get certified as an A&P, what kind of cost reductions could I expect if I were to work on my own aircraft? I understand parts would still be a cost to consider, but the labor costs would be essentially eliminated. It would be my own time and effort. Does anybody here have knowledge on the cost breakdown of light aircraft maintenance?
Click to expand...

Mostly labor. Oil, filters, spark-plugs and the occasional consumable part like an alternator or vacuum pump are not that expensive.

Also, does anybody here have experience both owning and maintaining their own aircraft? Are pilots even allowed to be their own A&Ps, or is that regulated due to concern over conflict of interest?
Click to expand...

No first hand experience (i wish). There is no regulation that I am aware of that restricts and A&P from working on his own plane.
 
Tom-D said:
Well every one is saying it is cheaper to own a E/AB. my point is it isn't.
Click to expand...
Ugghhh. Fine. In most cases, when comparing planes of similar performance and mission, EAB tend to cost less to own and fly than certified. Happy now?
In order to get into any aircraft the purchase price must be considered. In these days it is a dam poor E/AB that can be bought for what a 150 can be.
Click to expand...
And again this completely ignores many other factors such as performance and mission. If I just wanted to get in the air as dirt cheap as possible, powered parachutes can be had for a song.
And to add you can't buy E/AB parts for less than you can buy Certified parts for. Simply because a Lycoming part is still a Lycoming part. Radios the same thing, appliances same, a Cleveland brake is still a Cleveland brake.
Click to expand...
This is just flat out wrong.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Ugghhh. Fine. In most cases, when comparing planes of similar performance and mission, EAB tend to cost less to own and fly than certified. Happy now?
And again this completely ignores many other factors such as performance and mission. If I just wanted to get in the air as dirt cheap as possible, powered parachutes can be had for a song.
This is just flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

when you compare a certified aircraft to a E/AB in the same seating category like you wanted, you are limited to the cheaper portion of the certified market. you are simply not going to find a E/AB in the same dollar range. So the E/AB is going to cost you more to start with, and the operation of them will not be any significantly less, tires are tires, fuel is fuel, parts are still a fixed price.
If you believe the parts issue isn't true, find me a cylinder for a Lycoming Engine that isn't certified and prices as a Lycoming cylinder. or are you going to run junk.?
 
Last edited:
Timbeck2 said:
Well you don't get the SEI if your CFETP tasks don't get signed off. All the DD-214 lists is the SEI and the title thereof, not specific tasks. I guess it wouldn't hurt to bring your 623 to the FSDO for backup but I doubt it would help since it isn't listed in their list of what it takes to get the sign off to take the test.
Click to expand...

Didn’t realize those SEIs were tied to the CFETP.

We tied SEIs to instructor and evaluator qualifications.
 
I've been out of the game for a while but what I remember is:

The CFETP (Career Field Education Training Plan) lists all the things one needs to master in order to be signed off and be certified, such as a 3 level getting their 5 level, which carries an SEI (Special Experience Identifier) and then so on and so forth for the 7 and 9 level SEIs. So if you don't learn the things in the CFETP, you don't receive an SEI. You get washed out and either get retrained or out the door.
 
I own a cheap 150, and have my A&P cert. The only thing I pay someone else for is the annual, and for me that's $600. This year we found exhaust valve issues on one cylinder, by pulling it and reinstalling it myself I saved about $500 in labor, but the cylinder work was obviously the same. Overall, given only about 3 years of ownership, I figure I cut my maintenance cost about in half. The arguments for EAB being cheaper only apply if you put a dollar value on flying newer stuff. There are no readily available EABs either kit or built that can touch a fully depreciated 150 for cheapness. Mine cost $12,000, and has cost me an average of $1000 a year on maintenance all in. My operating costs at 50 hrs. per year are about $40. Pretty hard to fly anything, except ultralights and paramotors, for less than that. I've never regretted the A&P, and I paid for 147 school to get it. Just opens up opportunities in a lot of ways.
 
mondtster said:
I'm not a veteran so I can't tell you about this first hand but you can use your military experience to qualify.
Click to expand...
FYI: the way the military handles documenting experience for an A&P has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. If he has the opportunity to get his A&P while in service NOW he will be light years ahead. If he waits till he's out he has a 50/50 chance of getting his authorization tickets to attend Bakers or worse. As I stated earlier, he should finish his A&P now if what he says is true and can obtain it at his current assignment. The military currently uses off-the-shelf TC'd aircraft and they have paths to getting an A&P while serving.

So to the OP. Get your A&P before you leave this base.
 
Tom-D said:
find me a cylinder for a Lycoming Engine that isn't certified and prices as a Lycoming cylinder. or are you going to run junk.?
Click to expand...
There are more parts on a plane than just cylinders. Do you go to NAPA to buy alternators for your customers Bonanza?
 
Hello All. I apologize for not replying sooner, I've been a little busy at work, but I've been keeping up reading. First off, thank you for the replies and spirited discussion, it's been enlightening. I feel there's too many replies now for me to address everyone on an individual basis, however I've seen a few themes, so I'll probably just make a general reply here now.

Firstly, wow, I guess having an A&P as an aircraft owner is more frugal than I initially thought. I figured at best I'd be saving 1/3rd the cost of maintenance in general, but it sounds like some of you with experience in this are saying that maintenance labor alone is one of the biggest costs of ownership. I've been wanting to get an A&P if only to have a backup option if I get out of the military anyway, but this is a huge motivation to do it.

Secondly, I have considered several options for aircraft, from fixing up a Stinson project I found to kit planes to literally considering trying to design my own aircraft from scratch. I think I'm settling in on a used Cessna for a couple of reasons. For one, it appears to be a fairly cost effective option in terms of both initial cost, and parts availability (though as one of you mentioned, perhaps I should consider a 172 over a 150?) and relatively low risk. For another, while experimentals, sports, and ultralights all offer other advantages, kit planes in particular offering experience in the form of actually constructing the aircraft, it's also worth noting that I would like to build up flying hours towards other ratings. Eventually, I'd like to make piloting a possible career for me, not just a hobby. Ideally, I'd like to get a degree and commission as a pilot (at least having some flight hours under my belt would assist in that given the way the TBAS test works), but failing that, I'd at least like to try to make it in the civilian world someday. Even just flying on the weekends part time as an instructor would be nice. I'm not well versed in the regulations in the matter, but I assume building hours towards things like instrument rating, instructor certificate, and CPL is more feasible in a certified aircraft, yes? No matter what I do, I'd like to own a plane someday, but if I'm going to pick one, I want to pick one that will aid me in training for further opportunities. So I guess I should stipulate, a certified single engine aircraft is at the very least, preferable over an experimental or kit.

Thirdly, perhaps I should have elaborated a bit more about how I can get an A&P. I still have to look into it more to make sure I'm not talking out my rear, but basically, from what I've been told by others at my unit working towards it, our local aeroclub on base works with flightline maintainers to help them get their A&P. They have prerequisites for certain tasks that you need to be qualified on before they'll endorse sending you to this test prep class. The way we track qualification is with this program called TBA, which has a list of tasks you can be "signed off on" as qualified for a particular airframe. This is not limited per specialty. I, as an engine troop, can for example, have a hydraulics, or E&E, or Comm Nav, etc, task loaded under my TBA, and be signed off on it. This is how I can be documented as having experience in other fields besides just my official specialty. There's already a few tasks I am qualified on like that, and a few more in the works. GETTING qualified on these extra tasks is by no means easy. Either it involves taking an eternity to do it naturally on those rare occasions when other shops pull you to assist them when you have nothing to do, or it involves placing extra work on yourself to go get qualified, sometimes on your own time if need be. It takes effort, I've seen my own supervisor stay late past a 12 hours just to learn how to R2 a hydro pump. This is an even harder thing to accomplish when you consider my particular circumstances. I work at a tanker unit in the pacific. Basically, whenever something flies in the pacific, we fly too. Furthermore, because the way manning is distributed in the USAF, my shop is currently... well... FUBAR. Lots of experienced people leaving, lots of brand new, or never worked on this airframe, or otherwise useless for other reasons, people replacing them (through no fault of their own, it just happens), and I'm stuck in the middle having made the mistake of extending... when I could've already moved by now, to a base back in the states, where my ambitions would be far easier to attain due to a lower tempo and better manning.

In some ways, poor manning can help with cut training. If a different shop has too few people to troubleshoot an issue or R2 a major part, I can go help out, and get experience on something I otherwise wouldn't. The flip side is I don't have the free time at work (or even on my own time, for that matter, considering my days are often either official, or unofficial 12 hour shifts) necessary to go learn skills that aren't readily accessible. For example, metals tech, sheet metal, AR, and structures are all structure related shops that AREN'T working out of the same unit/building as me... Which means learning from them is going to be a lot harder... Which sucks, because those are all going to be useful skills in owning an aircraft. Being a jet engine mechanic doesn't exactly endow you with the ability to inspect for, spot, and fix metal corrosion and structural damage. I know what does and doesn't work for fan blades and combustion chambers, not so much the skin of the aircraft.

Furthermore, I fully realize that if I do go this route, while it'll technically give me the certification, I realize there's a world of difference between owning a piece of paper and actually having the knowhow. I would liken the difference between working on CFM-56's and working on a small piston aircraft to be a bit like the difference between working on a CFM-56 and working on a car... And I've already had that latter epiphany. Even in terms of propulsion, jet engines and pistons are very different. I realize that regardless of whether or not I can TECHNICALLY get an A&P based on my flight-line experience, that doesn't actually translate to being qualified to repair a Cessna. I'm already studying on my own time core concepts, starting with piston engines (I'm pretty quick at learning theory). I'm hoping working on my personal car's engine will give me a bit of a primer on internal combustion engines, and I also plan on seeing if I can shadow/volunteer/work part time, at my local aeroclub, to get real hands on experience with Cessnas before actually getting my A&P. Since light single engine pistons are where I want to actually apply my A&P, I figure the best training out of everything will probably come from shadowing the A&Ps at the Aeroclub. No matter what, I don't plan on doing maintenance on my personal aircraft unless I'm comfortable doing it. If I'm not, I'll shadow somebody else and help. If I don't get the experience I need via other methods by the time I get an aircraft, I'm sure this'll result in the usual maintenance costs the first few years of ownership, but already having the certification and then gaining the experience early on by assisting those who have more than me, would still save lots of money in the long run.

Another thing that might help with a general knowledge base in both maintenance and flying is that soon I'll be working towards finishing up my CCAF (community college of the air force), and an aeronautics degree from Embry Riddle. Since my current training counts towards a CCAF that then counts towards 60 credit hours in a 120 credit hour aeronautics degree, it's my quickest option for getting a degree to commission with.

The point is, while getting this A&P this way is TECHNICALLY free, and TECHNICALLY gives me the ability to work on my own plane, I'm well aware even getting it will take a lot of effort and time, and that actually gaining the experience needed to not just be an A&P in name only will take even more effort and time. In that sense, nothing is ever free. I didn't mean to give off the impression that getting an A&P this way is somehow "easy"... Just free. And given what I get paid, I'd take free over easy any day. It'd take me my year's salary to buy a 25,000 dollar aircraft outright, let alone maintain it. So if I can get an A&P for free, even if it means my life will become far busier than it already is, I fully plan to take that opportunity. It helps that I've been obsessed with planes since I was 4 months old (if my parents are to be believed). Learning about them inside and out just for fun comes naturally to me. Someday later in life, I wouldn't mind getting an engineering degree just to have fun designing them from scratch and get paid to do it.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
when you compare a certified aircraft to a E/AB in the same seating category like you wanted, you are limited to the cheaper portion of the certified market. you are simply not going to find a E/AB in the same dollar range. So the E/AB is going to cost you more to start with, and the operation of them will not be any significantly less, tires are tires, fuel is fuel, parts are still a fixed price.
If you believe the parts issue isn't true, find me a cylinder for a Lycoming Engine that isn't certified and prices as a Lycoming cylinder. or are you going to run junk.?
Click to expand...

Tom, I've found everything you state here to be true. The one place I see an advantage with E/AB over TCd aircraft is when it comes to modifications. Take a Super Cub and all the typical mods you see on them and compare what it would cost in paperwork and headaches to get the certified version in the same configuration as an experimental one. In the grand scheme of things the cost may be relatively insignificant (what's a few thousand dollars between friends) but the hassle and inability to just do things as you see fit does have a value. At least it does to me.

Or for a slightly more obscure alteration story. A friend bought a Stinson with an o-470 and 2870 floats and is importing it to the US. There is no easy approval for that configuration so it needs a field approval. If it was E/AB it would have been done a long time ago.
 
Tom-D said:
Well every one is saying it is cheaper to own a E/AB. my point is it isn't.
In order to get into any aircraft the purchase price must be considered. In these days it is a dam poor E/AB that can be bought for what a 150 can be.
And to add you can't buy E/AB parts for less than you can buy Certified parts for. Simply because a Lycoming part is still a Lycoming part. Radios the same thing, appliances same, a Cleveland brake is still a Cleveland brake.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. For a non A&P owner it's a no brainer (IF the owner has the skills and inclination to work on the plane himself, which is a big if). For an A&P owner the difference won't be as dramatic because he can work on a standard aircraft while the non A&P owner has to hire somebody, but the A&P can do the annual on an experimental instead of hiring an IA.

Purchase price, C-150 dollars won't get you a nice RV-4 (for example), but a C-150 won't deliver RV-4 performance, either. What would you have to pay in the certified market to get RV-8 performance? And the RV doesn't need TSO'd avionics to get a nice panel. That "Lycoming" engine might be built with non "certified" aftermarket parts that are less expensive and/or better quality. It might have non certified accessories like electronic ignition instead of magnetos, using cheap auto spark plugs while getting better fuel economy. And so on...
 
"Kadena?

Spent 5 years of my life there and was a member of the Aero Club hence where I learned to fly. Good luck in your quest."

Yup. Planning on walking out of here with a PPL, A&P and Aeronautics degree. Probably a pipe dream considering the way work's going. But I can certainly try.

Least flying here is gorgeous. Took my intro flight that came with the ground school, now I'm itching for another flight. Were you maintenance while here?
 
Yeah. I started out in PLSC (PACAF Logistics Support Center, don't know if that's a thing anymore there.) in-shop working on J-79s. Then went to the F-110 in-shop then went to test cell. I was in the Aero Club there and both 152s I flew most aren't there anymore. One went to Australia and the other went to Arkansas. I was on my second solo when the SR-71 came back to do pattern work. Of course they held me over Kadena Circle until he landed but there aren't many people who can claim that they shared a pattern with the SR-71.
 
Dana said:
That "Lycoming" engine might be built with non "certified" aftermarket parts that are less expensive and/or better quality.
Click to expand...
Show me those parts. parts to build a 0-360 for example are either build by superior or Lycoming. and they are not cheap.
After market accessories yes, I'll give you that. Maybe, but when I see an electronic ignition and fuel injection kit for a 0-200 selling for 5k plus, and used mags for $450. I think that would be a hard case to make.
when you try to compare E/AB to certified, there is always apples to oranges. So there is no direct comparison.
two of my certified customers also have RV-6's very nice aircraft, but they are expensive. and they are not the aircraft that will operate cheap.
 
For a life after the service, is working in the airline maintenance side something you can envision yourself doing at all ? Sounds like you are getting a lot of 'big airplane' experience that should help you if you wanted to go that direction.
 
Hat Man said:
I'm not well versed in the regulations in the matter, but I assume building hours towards things like instrument rating, instructor certificate, and CPL is more feasible in a certified aircraft, yes?
Click to expand...
All else being equal, certified vs EAB doesn't make a difference as far as building time goes. Hours are hours. Both can be operated IFR if appropriately equipped and certified. Both can be used for training and checkrides if they otherwise meet the requirements of the checkride in question.

You can't use an experimental for commercial ops and with rare exception you can instruct others in one. But you can receive instruction in one and the hours you log it one are still hours logged.
 
@Timbeck2

That's awesome man. I'd kill to see one of those things fly. Saw one on display in basic. And test cell sounds like a blast. Already looked into going backshop from my unit, but it'll never happen. They don't move people OUT of terribly manned units.

They still have a 152 at the aeroclub. Don't know for how long though. For the longest time their only other plane was an older 172 (with nose art of Snoopy), but they've since gotten something like 3 or 4 newer 172s all at once, so scheduling should be a lot easier now. They were backed up for a while last year (espescially since someone serviced their planes with the wrong grade of fuel at one point). Right now I'm trying to move out of the dorms, but after that I'm gonna try for 2-4 flight hours a month.
 
Tom-D said:
Show me those parts. parts to build a 0-360 for example are either build by superior or Lycoming. and they are not cheap.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that 100% of all parts are cheaper on EAB. There are certain major parts that are going to cost no matter what. But there are lots of parts options available to the owner of an EAB that are not available to the owner of a Cessna.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
No one is saying that 100% of all parts are cheaper on EAB. There are certain major parts that are going to cost no matter what. But there are lots of parts options available to the owner of an EAB that are not available to the owner of a Cessna.
Click to expand...
Well yes they are..they go under the names like minor alterations, major alterations and STCs.
Want to get rid of the expensive alternator. lots of after market ones available STCed and ready to go.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Have you ever maintained one? I've maintained several (I'm both a pilot and mechanic, and used them as a flight instructor as well). They are little cheaper than a Lyc-powered 172. That O-200 usually needed valve work at mid-time, while our O-320's in the 172s went all the way to TBO without ever pulling the cylinders. There are places that things crack in the 150, as well. And the older ones with the flat-leaf gear legs suffer corrosion pitting that weakens that shot-peened surface so it cracks and fails, and legs are pretty hard to find now. Most are corroded. And just try finding a new fuel shutoff valve...
Click to expand...
My wife has had a 150 for about 10 years now. Other than routine oil changes and such the only maintenance its needed is a vacuum pump, a compass, and a couple sets of tires. Annuals run between $250-400 depending on my IA's mood. That's with me stripping the interior, inspection plates, etc.

The fuel valve was leaking about 5 years ago so I chucked it in the lathe, took a light skim cut to clean up the taper, then polished it. It's fine now.
 
Last edited:
@weilke

Honestly... No.

Yes, especially considering the plane I work on, my skills would transfer over to civilian airline maintenance very easily. I basically work on the granddaddy of jet airliners. But I was only ever interested in maintenance to learn the skills and move on to something else like piloting, not make it my 20 or 30 year career.

To make matters worse, a big part of it is whether or not you enjoy your job. Personally, I enjoy turning wrenches and fixing jets... But that's about 10% of my actual job, the rest of it I can't stand. I'm kind of limited in what I can say about, negatively speaking, as an active duty member, but if you want some idea of what my life is like, I'd read 20 Years Done's blogs on his experience as a maintainer (and later experience managing them). Working here has left a bad taste in my mouth. I couldn't care less if the civilian maintenance world is significantly easier, I just don't want to die a mechanic. I'd rather die a pilot, an astronaut, a scientist, an engineer, SOMETHING. The one good thing about being military is now I've got a crap ton of college benefits to go pursue other career fields with.

That being said, it's a nice safety net should my ambitions never come to fruition. It'll be nice to have a marketable skill I can always fall back on, stick on a resume, and use on a personal basis whenever I need them. I may hate my job, but I'll never regret the skills I'm learning in it currently. 3 years ago, I was a klutz who barely knew which end of a screwdriver to use. Now I've about entirely cut car mechanics out of my life. THAT, I will never regret, and will take with me to my grave.

I'm not saying any of this to disrespect those who have made a career of maintenance, like it's a bad choice in career. Rather, I respect people who stick with it for their fortitude. I especially respect the people I work with immensely who have been military maintenance for 10+ years, and have made a career of it. I know one who's going to be in this unit for a total of 8 years here in a year or two. He's the hardest working person I've ever met, and does so with a smile on his face. I don't know how he does it... Maybe his liver naturally produces crack or something, there's gotta be some sort of medical explanation for it.
 
Last edited:
Hat Man said:
@weilke

Honestly... No.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Many good reasons not to. It would always put food on your table, if you can put up with the joys of working for an airline that is.

Looks like you can get the ticket as part of your current gig with a bit of effort and no real financial cost. No reason not to do it. Aside from the aspect of being able to wrench on your own plane, it will never be in your way in a career in aviation. Pilot, management, engineering, the extra letters on the plastic card is never going to be a negative.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Yeah. I started out in PLSC (PACAF Logistics Support Center, don't know if that's a thing anymore there.) in-shop working on J-79s. Then went to the F-110 in-shop then went to test cell.
Click to expand...

Not pertinent, but I was the construction manager for a test cell build at NAS Kingsville in the 80s. It could handle F-404s and F-110s, and was a very interesting project.

It was always fun to see the overnight transients in F-14s, F-18s, and A-6s that had earlier graduated from VT-22 and VT-23 takeoff. All sorts of showin' off was demonstrated.
 
Hat Man said:
I'm not saying any of this to disrespect those who have made a career of maintenance, like it's a bad choice in career. Rather, I respect people who stick with it for their fortitude.
Click to expand...
Fortitude is only required if you don't like the job. There are A&P's that actually like what they do, no fortitude required. Likewise, I have known more than a few professional pilots who did not enjoy the work they did one bit and could not get out of bed in the morning without a healthy cup of fortitude. Different strokes and all that.
 
I have an A/P and work as a lead mechanic for a regional airline. Im also a student pilot with 20ish hours, and shopping for an A/C myself. One major stumbling block I have is no options for hangar space. It would making turning wrenches on my own a real hassle.

As far as your A/P goes, be quite careful how you approach this. I work with lots of ex-mil guys who got their tickets. As I understand the key is X number of years on the same airframe. That said, some of the guys have spent WAY MORE $$ than others in the process. I strongly recommend using a community college over a for profit aviation only school. I cannot stress that enough. Some of our mechs spent $40k on school and others spent far less or even nothing with some basic grants. The guys with certs from the big name schools are no better prepared for the job we do. If your interested in school or work in South Carolina PM me.

The experience at our regional is quite different from the military as I hear. You may like it.
 
Hat Man said:
I realize there's a world of difference between owning a piece of paper and actually having the knowhow.
Click to expand...
But that piece of paper is worth its weight in gold. We all start with zip experience. If you have the opportunity, pursue the A&P while in the service. I can't repeat that enough. Once out it will cost you time (30 months) to get it as it is increasing rare for someone to leave the service with their FAA A&P Test Authorization slips.
Hat Man said:
Honestly... No.
Click to expand...
And don't sell your A&P certificate short. A person with an A&P enjoys more recognition...and money...OUTSIDE the aviation industry than in. There are a number of non-aviation industries that hire only A&Ps like dental equipment mfg'rs, directional drilling companies, and other specialized entities. The reason: an A&P is one of the few certifications that requires a certain level of A-Z of skill sets in order to pass. Get your A&P now then decide what you want to do with it. It doesn't expire after you get it.
 
Tom-D said:
Show me a E/AB 4 place that can be built for less than you can buy a Certified 4 place for.

Parts are parts you will pay as much for a starter for A Experimental as you will a certified.
Cleveland brake set, probably more.
Click to expand...

Why does it need to be a 4 place. They are out there, in any case. I just ordered an aileron skin for a Piper that cost $500 w/ shipping. The same skin for my RV-7A would be around $50. If the OP owned an EAB, he could replace the skin himself (no A&P required) and save a pile of cash on the repair. Fact is, EAB is far less expensive to maintain, which is why they are so popular. Vans has sold over 30k kits with over 10k flying. The design is not constrained by eons hold FAA regulations, which means is is less expensive to operate. I fly at 160 KTAS on 8 GPH. Show me a certified plane that will do that.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
so...how much gas do you need to save to break even with certified? :D
Click to expand...

My Cherokee 140 burned 8-9 GPH doing 100-105 knots indicated. If I wanted to fly high and lean the engine for better economy, it would take 45-60 minutes to get there when fully loaded and burning 12-13 GPH getting there and it would take nearly twice as long, due to additional fuel stops, to get to my destination. I wouldn't take a Cherokee today if it were given to me. It may take a few years to break even with a C150 but it will happen. I recently saw an IFR equipped C150 that sold for $50k. Compared to that one, I am very close :)

First year of ownership of my Cherokee cost me $5-6k in repairs (previous owner was an A&P/IA). I sold it two years after purchase for less than I paid (soft market in 2014). I spent about $60 building my RV-7A but took care to find deals, along with a mid-time Lycoming out of a Piper Archer that was wind damaged. I also bought a crashed Lancair 235 and parted it out so my Dynon avionics cost me < $10. There are other EAB that are far less expensive and easier to build (see Sonex) and use non-certified engines (see AeroVee) that are purpose built for aircraft.

For the OP, a C150 makes a lot of sense for building hours since it will take him twice as long to get where he is going :D
 
Last edited:
@Raymo

Lol, now there’s a thought.

To go even cheaper and slower, I also had this idea of finding a super cub project, buying it sans engine and prop, and making it into an experimental by slapping a new aerovee in with the option to turbo it later on. I even priced it out, found a super cub, lots of nice mods, with a high time engine being the only real thing wrong with it. Said he’d sell for 22,000 no engine and prop, so it’d probably be a little over 30,000 to get it and put an aerovee in.

I dunno how well that’d work given that you’d need to use a smaller prop with that engine, but I don’t think it’d cause too many problems given that it’s a tandem. That particular airframe will probably be long gone by the time I’m ready to get a plane though.
 
@Doug Reid

Well, I could probably arrange coursework as well if I need to. It’d still be pretty much free with air force tuition assistance. One of the benefits of doing that would also be making the air force go give me some time to go work on it. An actual scheduled class would be something my unit would need to consider when it comes to my schedule.
 
Tom-D said:
Well yes they are..they go under the names like minor alterations, major alterations and STCs.
Want to get rid of the expensive alternator. lots of after market ones available STCed and ready to go.
Click to expand...
Some STC's cost money. A lot more than just the components themselves. An E-AB doesn't need to use the STC.
 
Punkinhead said:
The fuel valve was leaking about 5 years ago so I chucked it in the lathe, took a light skim cut to clean up the taper, then polished it. It's fine now.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that can be done. Lapping it with very fine valve grinding compound works, too. But in the world of aviation, where the regs require that repairs be done in accordance with manufacturer's instructions or equivalent, or in accordance with standard practices, it gets sketchy. The valve works fine, but if it failed and caused an accident it wouldn't clear the court case.

I tried to find approved or acceptable data on that sort of repair. Spent a bunch of time researching it. Found nothing anywhere. Here in Canada we have the Owner-Maintenance category for older aircraft, and the 150 qualifies. For private aircraft only. Owners can replace that valve with one from a truck parts supplier, and it works just fine and is legal in that case. The US needs that category, too. Badly.
 
Hat Man said:
To go even cheaper and slower, I also had this idea of finding a super cub project, buying it sans engine and prop, and making it into an experimental by slapping a new aerovee in with the option to turbo it later on.
Click to expand...
You can't just convert a certified airplane into an experimental.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top