29 Mar 2024, 06:52 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 11 posts ] |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: to overhaul, or not to overhaul, that is the question Posted: 22 Nov 2021, 18:53 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/18/11 Posts: 7681 Post Likes: +3685 Location: Lakeland , Ga
Aircraft: H35, T-41B, Aircoupe
|
|
Currently you will get near zero value for your engines. So what would your value be with zero time or purchasing a midtime?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: to overhaul, or not to overhaul, that is the question Posted: 22 Nov 2021, 23:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/08 Posts: 4666 Post Likes: +2678
Aircraft: B55 P2
|
|
If an airplane is airworthy, I think its never worth doing engine work to sell it. I think the potential customer is unlikely to overestimate the cost of doing the work.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: to overhaul, or not to overhaul, that is the question Posted: 23 Nov 2021, 15:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/01/16 Posts: 453 Post Likes: +340 Location: Citrus County Florida
Aircraft: Shopping
|
|
Most of those P&W overhaul schedules are not submitted on engine condition but the financial condition of the entity and those engines are loafing in most of these applications. If the TBO was magically doubled would it change the decision?
When i owned the TBM it had a 3,500 TBO but the military version of the exact same aircraft had a TBO of 7,000 hours. The "story" is the military version received better maintenance over its lifetime. I call BS. its a reoccurring revenue number not an engineering number.
When i sold the aircraft no one cared about the hours on the engine as long as the maintenance was completed. Yes it will cost you resale value but the air frame having a hard stop life limit is more a detriment to me than the engine being over TBO. Personally I would not buy any aircraft at 2K hours from a hard stop unless it was really cheap.
_________________ Anthony Dennis
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: to overhaul, or not to overhaul, that is the question Posted: 23 Nov 2021, 17:48 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/31/17 Posts: 1589 Post Likes: +623
Aircraft: C180
|
|
jet prop has a hard stop life limit? I knew a guy once who was buying a new to him plane. his current turbine was near TBO his plan WAS to HSI and fly on but he decided to trade it in. since in our state parts arent' subject to sales tax he overhauled and captured a huge amount of additional trade in value tax free the then reduced the sales tax on the plane he bought. Saved a couple tens of thousands in the end he calculated out.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: to overhaul, or not to overhaul, that is the question Posted: 23 Nov 2021, 22:34 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/24/18 Posts: 727 Post Likes: +340 Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: To recast the question a bit, how does the time left on the airframe change the value of an overhaul? I’m not sure you would overhaul with only say 500 left on the airframe, would you?
Ed Your airframe has a life limit? Would you mind sharing details?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: to overhaul, or not to overhaul, that is the question Posted: 24 Nov 2021, 10:33 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/21/10 Posts: 326 Post Likes: +162 Location: Newport, Rhode Island
Aircraft: Piper Mirage jetProp
|
|
Attachment: Pa46LifeLimits.png From the type certificate data sheet, A25SO Sept 2000. May stem from findings or other issues. And may get revisited as the fleet ages. Ed
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: to overhaul, or not to overhaul, that is the question Posted: 24 Nov 2021, 10:54 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/21/16 Posts: 652 Post Likes: +266
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Most of those P&W overhaul schedules are not submitted on engine condition but the financial condition of the entity and those engines are loafing in most of these applications. If the TBO was magically doubled would it change the decision?
When i owned the TBM it had a 3,500 TBO but the military version of the exact same aircraft had a TBO of 7,000 hours. The "story" is the military version received better maintenance over its lifetime. I call BS. its a reoccurring revenue number not an engineering number.
When i sold the aircraft no one cared about the hours on the engine as long as the maintenance was completed. Yes it will cost you resale value but the air frame having a hard stop life limit is more a detriment to me than the engine being over TBO. Personally I would not buy any aircraft at 2K hours from a hard stop unless it was really cheap. A more likely explanation is that the basis of civil certification (FAR 23, EASA 23) requires life limits whereas the military does not. As the fleet ages,manufacturers often concoct a SLEP, Service Life Extension Program. $$$$$ It definitely is an engineering number on the civil side, but yes, revenue is a factor.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: to overhaul, or not to overhaul, that is the question Posted: 24 Nov 2021, 16:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 06/01/16 Posts: 453 Post Likes: +340 Location: Citrus County Florida
Aircraft: Shopping
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Most of those P&W overhaul schedules are not submitted on engine condition but the financial condition of the entity and those engines are loafing in most of these applications. If the TBO was magically doubled would it change the decision?
When i owned the TBM it had a 3,500 TBO but the military version of the exact same aircraft had a TBO of 7,000 hours. The "story" is the military version received better maintenance over its lifetime. I call BS. its a reoccurring revenue number not an engineering number.
When i sold the aircraft no one cared about the hours on the engine as long as the maintenance was completed. Yes it will cost you resale value but the air frame having a hard stop life limit is more a detriment to me than the engine being over TBO. Personally I would not buy any aircraft at 2K hours from a hard stop unless it was really cheap. A more likely explanation is that the basis of civil certification (FAR 23, EASA 23) requires life limits whereas the military does not. As the fleet ages,manufacturers often concoct a SLEP, Service Life Extension Program. $$$$$ It definitely is an engineering number on the civil side, but yes, revenue is a factor.
Do not think so - Revenue is the prime directive regardless. But i have been doing product development engineering for 30 years so what do i know. Engineering life limits try to keep you out of court, revenue life limits keeps your job in C-suite. B10 life has been around since the beginning, if you want to believe a Pratt PT6 has a B50 life then go ahead. I will still call BS.
_________________ Anthony Dennis
|
|
Top |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 11 posts ] |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|