What in The actual ****, Hartzell?

Jim K

Jim K

360 For Spacing
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
8,139
Location
Limbo
Display Name
Richard Digits
Home Airfield
KCMI
I knew the PE takeover of Hartzell came with some nutty price increases, but this is insanity. The Chrysler alternator on my Lance is ready for new brushes. My mechanic looked in the Hartzell book and got the part numbers. Spruce's price? $150. Each. Unreal. I was able to find them for $100 each on another site, but that's small consolation. The automotive equivalent is about $20 for the pair.

Falcon Aero was able to provide me with a more reasonable solution, but it's not certified outside of his shop, so it's on us to figure out the paperwork. He was very helpful, and also mentioned that hartzell is charging $500 for pulleys that used to be $100. He said he's scouring ebay and junkyards for pulleys for his overhauls.

I thought maybe they were trying to push people into plane power alternators, but no, the brushes for those are also outrageous. I certainly won't be doing any business with hartzell if there's any way to avoid it.
 
Last edited:
Hartzell- "....watcha gonna do?"


Sigh. Just dropped 700 hundred on prop vernier control from McFarlane.
 
That’s nothing. I was planning on using some switches I salvaged out of my Mooney, but I needed one more. Figured I’d just buy a new one and have all the same style. Until I saw the prices….

www.aircraftspruce.com

Klixon 7270-5-20 Circuit Breakers | Aircraft Spruce

Klixon 7270-5-20 Circuit Breakers 7270 series circuit breakers were designed to utilize less space behind the panel while protecting wire and cable in aircraft and ground support equipment on 120 VAC, 400 Hz or 30 VDC systems.
www.aircraftspruce.com www.aircraftspruce.com
 
Salty said:
That’s nothing. I was planning on using some switches I salvaged out of my Mooney, but I needed one more. Figured I’d just buy a new one and have all the same style. Until I saw the prices….
Click to expand...
Breaker switches are pricey. When I restored my Decathlon, I saved some bucks by using separate breakers and toggle switches.
 
Jim K said:
I knew the PE takeover of Hartzell came with some nutty price increases, but this is insanity. The Chrysler alternator on my Lance is ready for new brushes. My mechanic looked in the Hartzell book and got the part numbers. Spruce's price? $150. Each. Unreal. I was able to find them for $100 each on another site, but that's small consolation. The automotive equivalent is about $20 for the pair.

Falcon Aero was able to provide me with a more reasonable solution, but it's not certified outside of his shop, so it's on us to figure out the paperwork. He was very helpful, and also mentioned that hartzell is charging $500 for pulleys that used to be $100. He said he's scouring ebay and junkyards for pulleys for his overhauls.

I thought maybe they were trying to push people into plane power alternators, but no, the brushes for those are also outrageous. I certainly won't be doing any business with hartzell if there's any way to avoid it.
Click to expand...
To be fair, under private equity the place probably runs better and with improved quality, right?

Ha!

The first page of the private equity playbook is how to cut costs and squeeze every penny out of their new ATM.. err... I mean "portfolio company". Higher prices, lower costs = bigger dividend recap checks to their new owners.

While I don't like places like Hartzell being scooped up be PE (and the crazy prices that go with it), I'm just glad they didn't buy more nursing homes and homes for the disabled. That's where they really go full evil.
 
As much as I hate to say it, I feel like a lot of what we’re seeing has been part of a bigger plan to kill off general Aviation. I just don’t see how this can continue the way these price increases have been.
 
RyanB said:
As much as I hate to say it, I feel like a lot of what we’re seeing has been part of a bigger plan to kill off general Aviation. I just don’t see how this can continue the way these price increases have been.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m coming to the same conclusion. Had to do my 500 hour mag inspection/overhaul, and got quoted $2200 for the work. So looked at new Slick mags as an alternative and that would have cost nearly $4000. Pretty sure that price has more than doubled in the last six years.
 
AlleyCat67 said:
Had to do my 500 hour mag inspection/overhaul, and got quoted $2200 for the work. So looked at new Slick mags as an alternative and that would have cost nearly $4000.
Click to expand...
That's when you replace them with E-mags.
 
Jim K said:
but it's not certified outside of his shop, so it's on us to figure out the paperwork.
Click to expand...
For the paperwork, look at it as a minor alteration which your mechanic can sign off and he could even apply AC 23-27 if he wanted. Or give EAAs VARMA application a try but you'll still need installation acceptance by your mechanic so IMO a stright alteration is simpler.

If he thinks its more a major alteration you have field approval or obtaining a DER 8110-3 as options. But thats for him to decide. 10 to 1 the Falcon guy is installing similar brushes as an alteration or if they are a CRS under an in house repair process which they can do.

Regardless, mechanics have been substituting OEM parts via alterations for a long time. However, I think the bigger topic is the reason why Hartzell (and others) sold out and what part of Hartzell is that company really interested in.
 
Bell206 said:
10 to 1 the Falcon guy is installing similar brushes as an alteration or if they are a CRS under an in house repair process which they can do.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he has an approved process to use them in his shop, but there's no PMA or anything.

Bell206 said:
a minor alteration which your mechanic can sign off and he could even apply AC 23-27 if he wanted.
Click to expand...
That's the plan

Florida Flyer said:
Please share the info
Click to expand...
I called and left a message. He called back a few minutes later. Super friendly. $50 for the pair, which seemed like a reasonable alternative to ordering a bunch of automotive brushes and figuring out which ones are correct/ highest quality.
 
We *****, but we still pay, because we have no other choice.
Situations like this don't change until wallets get put back in the pocket.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
We *****, but we still pay, because we have no other choice.
Situations like this don't change until wallets get put back in the pocket.
Click to expand...
That's just it. I'm willing to pay a "certification premium", but at some point it's unacceptable. I'm willing to believe that some of hartzell's prices were too low, and raising them is better than going out of business and not being available, but this is blatant price gouging.

My real concern is, when this owner squeezes as much blood out as they think they can, then what? Stupidity like $300 for a pair of $10 carbon brushes is going to kill the company, or piston ga, which in turn kills the company. I guess they sell to the Chinese?

"Built on honor". Makes me sick now when I see that sticker.
 
Jim K said:
That's just it. I'm willing to pay a "certification premium", but at some point it's unacceptable. I'm willing to believe that some of hartzell's prices were too low, and raising them is better than going out of business and not being available, but this is blatant price gouging.

My real concern is, when this owner squeezes as much blood out as they think they can, then what? Stupidity like $300 for a pair of $10 carbon brushes is going to kill the company, or piston ga, which in turn kills the company. I guess they sell to the Chinese?

"Built on honor". Makes me sick now when I see that sticker.
Click to expand...

Built on honor, destroyed by avarice.
 
Every invoice I get pushes me one step closer to selling it and joining a club.
If I were in your shoes, I would have already set it on fire.
 
Jim K said:
That's just it. I'm willing to pay a "certification premium", but at some point it's unacceptable. I'm willing to believe that some of hartzell's prices were too low, and raising them is better than going out of business and not being available, but this is blatant price gouging.

My real concern is, when this owner squeezes as much blood out as they think they can, then what? Stupidity like $300 for a pair of $10 carbon brushes is going to kill the company, or piston ga, which in turn kills the company. I guess they sell to the Chinese?

"Built on honor". Makes me sick now when I see that sticker.
Click to expand...

Same scenario as any other business that venture capitalists get involved in. Buy a good company, keep raising prices and lowering quality until sales stop, sell off the carcass and claim a huge loss, most likely to Chinese investors who will copy/paste the design and sell a low quality replica for 1/3 of the price. Rinse and repeat.

It’s nothing against GA or aviation in general. It’s just the current market system we have chosen.
 
Last edited:
I guess I look at it from a different angle. There’s been a lot of changes happening to the Part 91 support network for years that have gone un-noticed and are now slowly becoming noticed by the masses. Yet the only entity most point a finger at is the FAA. Unfortunately, they are not the driver behind these changes or increased costs. If anything, the FAA has tried to reduce the aircraft owner burden when OEMs elect to no longer support their aircraft in a reasonable way.

And while there are those who think the FAA can wave a magic wand and all costs will immediately drop to 1980 levels, its never worked that way as only the OEMs/vendors set those costs. As long as Hartzell or Piper or Lycoming are supplying the parts its solely their decision what they charge or even whether they'll produce them at all… which is becoming the next issue to watch.
 
Bell206 said:
However, I think the bigger topic is the reason why Hartzell (and others) sold out and what part of Hartzell is that company really interested in.
Click to expand...
Not to mention why people are out for the blood of the capitalists who dated buy the business but not the capitalists who dared sell it. Those higher prices are going to pay off the previous owners' buyout. But don't worry about that.
 
Lindberg said:
Not to mention why people are out for the blood of the capitalists who dated buy the business but not the capitalists who dared sell it. Those higher prices are going to pay off the previous owners' buyout. But don't worry about that.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem anyone is out for blood, just recognizing what's happening at Hartzell.
PE saw an opportunity to collect monopoly rents so they bought the company, they took advantage of the pricing power afforded to them, and now everyone pays more for the same thing.

Is it the end of the world? No.
But does it continue the trend of significant price increases without producing an ounce more of value? Yes.
 
Bell206 said:
I guess I look at it from a different angle. There’s been a lot of changes happening to the Part 91 support network for years that have gone un-noticed and are now slowly becoming noticed by the masses. Yet the only entity most point a finger at is the FAA. Unfortunately, they are not the driver behind these changes or increased costs. If anything, the FAA has tried to reduce the aircraft owner burden when OEMs elect to no longer support their aircraft in a reasonable way.

And while there are those who think the FAA can wave a magic wand and all costs will immediately drop to 1980 levels, its never worked that way as only the OEMs/vendors set those costs. As long as Hartzell or Piper or Lycoming are supplying the parts its solely their decision what they charge or even whether they'll produce them at all… which is becoming the next issue to watch.
Click to expand...

What the FAA could do is recognize that design and manufacturing are no longer done with a draftsman and Bridgeport lathe, and work with those with good ideas to bring them to market faster.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
What the FAA could do is recognize that design and manufacturing are no longer done with a draftsman and Bridgeport lathe, and work with those with good ideas to bring them to market faster.
Click to expand...

huh?

It's not the FAA's job to bring products to market.

The FAA has established the airworthiness requirements. It's up to the applicant to figure out how to meet the certification requirements.
 
aterry1067 said:
Same scenario as any other business that venture capitalists get involved in. Buy a good company, keep raising prices and lowering quality until sales stop, sell off the carcass and claim a huge loss, most likely to Chinese investors who will copy/paste the design and sell a low quality replica for 1/3 of the price. Rinse and repeat.

It’s nothing against GA or aviation in general. It’s just the current market system we have chosen.
Click to expand...

That's not what venture capitalists do. You are confusing your bogeymen.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
What the FAA could do is recognize that design and manufacturing are no longer done with a draftsman and Bridgeport lathe, and work with those with good ideas to bring them to market faster.
Click to expand...
In what manner? Perhaps some examples where you think they’ve fallen short? From my viewpoint, I only see a lack of industry interest in certain markets which is necessary before the FAA is even involved. A quick look at the aviation markets that are growing, and you’ll find the FAA is supporting those “good ideas” and even certifying them.
 
I think @Bell206 nailed it when he mentioned that a lot of the stuff we struggle with could be replaced with COTS parts signed off by the A&P as minor alterations. All we need is knowledgeable mechanics that understand what the end goal, function/safety wise, is.
Brushes are one example. LED lights is another. If my stall warning horn fails, I'm not paying the aviation price when I can get one at Mouser for $5. I'll work with my IA to get the replacement in as a minor.

As far as FAA certification support, it's relatively easy if one establishes a good working relationship with the Certification Branch (the artist formerly known as the Aircraft Certification Office).
The issue is, as I stated previously, the lack of a cohesive and committed market. "Build it and they will come" doesn't seem to work that well in certified GA.
 
What sucks is they also acquired Whirlwind. So even going EAB you're still dealing with Hartzell.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
We *****, but we still pay, because we have no other choice.
Situations like this don't change until wallets get put back in the pocket.
Click to expand...

I did; just doing my part.

Even the experimental space has gentrified a lot in the past 20 years. At least the legal allowance stills exists to go to [proverbial] NAPA and keep these winged lawnmowers serviced. The powerplant issue is to me the only piece that still straps the EAB sector into the aggregate fac-built pricing crush. I remain somewhat hopeful by the fact there is at least the theoretical alternative to keep propelling our "working poor" dreams via automotive powerplants.
 
hindsight2020 said:
I remain somewhat hopeful by the fact there is at least the theoretical alternative to keep propelling our "working poor" dreams via automotive powerplants.
Click to expand...
The major showstopper I see with the two or three viable automotive powerplants out there is that there is no way to add a second set of spark plugs.
No matter what the reliability of modern ignition systems is, all it takes is a plug having an issue and if you fly a fixed pitch prop, you're down to less than half thrust. Not a great situation that would be entirely preventable with a second set of plugs.
 
AV8R_87 said:
The major showstopper I see with the two or three viable automotive powerplants out there is that there is no way to add a second set of spark plugs.
No matter what the reliability of modern ignition systems is, all it takes is a plug having an issue and if you fly a fixed pitch prop, you're down to less than half thrust. Not a great situation that would be entirely preventable with a second set of plugs.
Click to expand...
I honestly cannot recall the last time I had a failure of any sort with an automotive spark plug. And that predates modern ignition systems. I remember the days when we replaced them regularly, but not for failures - just wear and PM. I believe the reason aircraft engines have dual plugs is the abysmally poor reliability of magnetos.

Maybe that’s just me…
 
DaleB said:
I honestly cannot recall the last time I had a failure of any sort with an automotive spark plug. And that predates modern ignition systems. I remember the days when we replaced them regularly, but not for failures - just wear and PM. I believe the reason aircraft engines have dual plugs is the abysmally poor reliability of magnetos.

Maybe that’s just me…
Click to expand...
I had one go bad on me 5 years ago. Driving along and everything is all good, and the next second I've got some really funky engine behavior and a loss of power and my engine light goes on. Would prefer not to experience that in the air!
 
DaleB said:
I believe the reason aircraft engines have dual plugs is the abysmally poor reliability of magnetos.
Click to expand...
You'll find originally two spark plugs were used for better performance. This is why when performing a mag check you lose RPM due to the loss of "performance." The safety side simply became a feature. As to reliability, the magneto is the most reliable component on the engine. The main reason behind any reliability issues is the owners lack of magneto mx. And spark plugs are technically considered consumables.
 
Personally I'm quite content flying behind an engine built for aviation with a billion+ hours of flight time to work out the kinks.
 
DaleB said:
I honestly cannot recall the last time I had a failure of any sort with an automotive spark plug. And that predates modern ignition systems.
Click to expand...
Didn't experience a plug failure, either, but I've had two coil on plug modules go bad (one on each car) in a combined 250000 miles driven. At the average speeds I got in my driving, that's a failure every 4000 drive hours or so, but the actual components and vehicles had significantly more time than that. Probably double. But infant mortality is a thing, and the consequences in the air could be serious, so I still like the idea of a second plug and ignition coil for each cylinder.

Now, if variable pitch/constant speed props were more affordable in the experimental space, I wouldn't care. Loss of a cylinder in a 4-cyl application would mean you could still get 75% power, as long as the prop can be adjusted for that 75% to be obtained at redline RPM.
 
Bell206 said:
In what manner? Perhaps some examples where you think they’ve fallen short? From my viewpoint, I only see a lack of industry interest in certain markets which is necessary before the FAA is even involved. A quick look at the aviation markets that are growing, and you’ll find the FAA is supporting those “good ideas” and even certifying them.
Click to expand...

I own a Comanche. Stabilator torque tubes are nothing but a cad plated precision ground steel tube. Now selling north of $3k for what should be a $500 item at most, if you can find one. The Australians came up with a replacement stab torque horn because it was made too onerous for it to be done here, and that piece, milled from billet aluminum by robot, is almost $2k. Gear trunions are $15k for the pair.
Gear transmission jackscrews, the list goes on and infinitum.

An SOS box, a doorbell buzzer for Chrissakes, is what, a grand? Any engineer could make a reliable solid state unit from an old GM four prong ignition module, sell it for a couple hundies and be profitable. But the only solid state replacement is ridiculously expensive too.

There's no competition for any of this, courtesy of the Feds. Even patents expire eventually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top