Robert, just cut it out. There’s no place for facts on the internet.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the answer. I’m still waiting on how to find honeycomb delamination with a borescope.

You will find there’s virtually no warranty no matter what engine company you use. I have a 145 hour since new under warranty Rolls on my helicopter and it’s leaking oil. Basic answer was tough luck. I’m dealing with it. Equally you’re never going to collect on a Dallas airtight warranty.

There’s just too many other ways to shift the blame to the customer.

What used parts were in your $1M overhauls? That is helpful if they allow it and I'm curious which parts they are.

Ultras are maybe $2.5M market value typically. Spending $2M on overhauls seems like you won't get the value back on the market. You would have, say, about $4M invested in the airplane at that point?

Not everything is about market value, of course. If you have a plane you like and setup the way you want, it is worth more to you than the market.

Here is an Ultra for $2.4M with 549 SMOH engines:

https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... t-aircraft

This suggests a 0 SMOH airplane might be worth, maybe, $2.8M? Even that seems like pushing it a bit.

One could buy the advertised airplane, likely for less than $2.4M, swap the engines to your airplane (takes 1-2 days, minimal downtime), put your runouts on the bought airframe, and then sell it for maybe $1M? Surely at least $500K? Would work for a part 91 operator flying past TBO. Or keep it as a parts donor. Tires, wheels, brakes, starters, ACM, etc, are all valuable things to have.

The advertised airplane, at 13,620 hours, might be up against the landing gear end of life (11,450 cycles). If it has a lot of gear life left (maybe they bought new gear?), then the plane is quite valuable for that as well. The status sheet would tell the tale.

Mike C.

The more money the client spends on the shop, programs, etc, the more the blame falls on the shop, program, etc and not the consultant when things don't go right.

It doesn't take a lot of insight to simply recommend the expensive path. To find a more economical path requires more care and knowledge.

Mike C.

Pretty much.

The recommended maintenance is decided mostly by the business people and not the engineers. It is about revenue and not safety. The objective is to get as much money as possible from the operators. You are a fool if you think otherwise.

If I do one HSI, I have about 2000 hours left in my engines. That's 20 years at my current rate of flying, so beyond my expected use horizon.

My choices:

A. Overhaul in 200 hours

Cost about $1.3M, say. In 20 years, I will have a mid time Citation V that has 12,000 hours on it, is 54 years old, and soon will need new landing gear. Market value? Unknown, but it won't be great.

B. HSI in 200 hours and fly past TBO

Cost about $150K, say. In 20 years, I can scrap the airplane for parts. In the mean time, I will invest the saved $1.15M I didn't spend on the overhaul in an SP500 ETF that averages 10% per year. In 2045, that will be worth $6.4M.

Which plan do you think yields the best financial outcome?

I am pretty sure B is the answer. Option A also has the highest risk since my equity is tied up in engines, plus my higher hull value increases insurance, taxes, etc. Also, option B protects me from a jet market downturn if prices collapse due to all sorts of political or economic reasons.

Right now is a golden age of flying older jets. They still have good useful life yet, there are good parts out there, and engines can still be maintained cheaply, there are good avionic mods, etc. In 10-20 years, things might be much worse, who knows.

Mike C.

There are many “manufacturers recommendations” based purely on profit incentives across all of aviation. If given the choice when operating under part 91 it makes sense to carefully analyze each one.

Ah yes, the implication that if you don't go to the expensive shop, it will be done wrong. Fear is a powerful motivator for spending money unnecessarily.

All this "pedigree preserving money", do you make it back in the end? I doubt it.

My plane would be one of those "high pedigree" planes you speak of. Factory service since new, only 2 corporate owners, pro flown all the time, etc. That fits your profile of quality. Did that helps its market value? Not a bit, which is why I bought it so cheap.

How about that factory service center quality? The %#$@ I found in my airplane was amazing. Now that I have it maintained at a little podunk shop, it is in far better shape than when the factory did it. I've saved roughly about $300K over taking it to Textron over the past 4 years.

There are definitely owners that operate in your world, but there are definitely owners who do not and they do just fine operating differently than your advice, and doing it for less money.

Mike C.

My advice or your continued description of my advice?

Why are you even commenting on this thread?

This is about Pratt and Whitney OVERHAULS, on airplanes that the owners WILL overhaul them and in MOST cases have no non-Pratt or Standard options.

You would never have any set of engines overhauled by Pratt & Whitney so what do you care?

Don't get me wrong - I do the same. I own 5 aircraft engines, and they're all past TBO.

The secret sauce is *which* manufacturer recommendations we chose to ignore. We are naturally biased against the most expensive (engine overhauls) and more likely to follow the cheaper ones (o-ring replacements.) Research is required, and we gain a tremendous amount from other owners' research here on BT.

The reason I'm not following Mike into the Citation V world is that I'm not ready to make those decisions at the seven figure level (yet!)

Don't get me wrong - I do the same. I own 5 aircraft engines, and they're all past TBO.

The secret sauce is *which* manufacturer recommendations we chose to ignore. We are naturally biased against the most expensive (engine overhauls) and more likely to follow the cheaper ones (o-ring replacements.) Research is required, and we gain a tremendous amount from other owners' research here on BT.

The reason I'm not following Mike into the Citation V world is that I'm not ready to make those decisions at the seven figure level (yet!)

Me, neither! Outside of initial purchase and avionic upgrade that were, combined, at the 6 figure level, nothing has been worse than 5 figures.

I was just at Blackhawk and they had 4 King Air 350s in the shop getting tricked out engines, avionics, and other work. These are $5M planes! Used!

I couldn't help myself wondering why people spend so much on a used King Air. What does it do better than my plane for the extra cost? I could never afford to own one. The cost of capital would be triple my yearly total operating cost.

Mike C.

Me, neither! Outside of initial purchase and avionic upgrade that were, combined, at the 6 figure level, nothing has been worse than 5 figures.

I was just at Blackhawk and they had 4 King Air 350s in the shop getting tricked out engines, avionics, and other work. These are $5M planes! Used!

I couldn't help myself wondering why people spend so much on a used King Air. What does it do better than my plane for the extra cost? I could never afford to own one. The cost of capital would be triple my yearly total operating cost.

Mike C.

Please don't show them the error of their ways. If you do, it will get hard for the rest of us to buy jets at reasonable prices.

Mike C.

And the cost of upcoming manufacturer recommended maintenance is the whole secret of why those jets are cheap in the first place.