Annual usage to preclude mechanical issues

[bnicolette]

Hello fellow aviators.  The thread regarding partnerships got me thinking about this question and I was curious if anybody has ever heard of a round about number for annual usage to preclude any mechanical issues.  I have heard folks say that the airplane just hasn't been flown enough and it might take a while to get the bugs out of it (why??  What kinds of things are happening as the airplane is sitting??).  I understand this if an airplane has just sat for the last couple years but really haven't noticed it personally.  My airplane, before I purchased it was flown about 5 -10 hours per year for the last 5 years.  I put some money into it but nothing really happened to it that I would attribute to lack of use.  I put about 70 hours on the Mooney this first year and expect to do about the same every year with a minimum of 50 hours.  The only hard and fast time limit I have heard yet is that the flight instrumet gyros need to be spun up for about 5 minutes every month to get the grease moved around in them.  (Kelly Manufacturing Company/RC Allen)

I would be curious what others have to say about these minimums and what they've heard, assuming the airplane lives indoors.  I know the harsh enviroment and the causes for concern leaving the baby outside.

[pjsny78]

I am still waiting to get the bugs out of my plane. After 300 hours and getting the plane to a zero squawk state, I have yet to see a time where I am good for more than 10hrs or so. I have heard all kinds of things. Mainly if you fly more the less maintenance you will have. Bullshit I say to this. I fly 50 hrs. A month and its ridiculous. If planes were like cars no one would buy them because of the maintenance involved. Sorry if this comes across kind of harsh but it’s a touchy subject to me.

[Immelman]

I've had pretty good dispatch reliability with my E. Really can't think of many things that have caused me to cancel a trip. I fly it once a week or better. Once in a blue moon it has sat 2, maybe 3 weeks. I'm not an expert or an engine rebuilder here, but I've read consistently that frequency of flight helps the engine.. and to that end I think its more about how often rather than how many hours per year. I could take a big trip, then park it for a few months letting the cam rust; I think weekly operation as Lycoming suggests isn't a bad idea.

Also I have seen that the more I fly it the better the engine seems to be (wear metals in the oil analysis, filter absolutely clean of metal, strong compressions just a pound or 2 below 80), this on a 1400hr engine. Maybe my last couple years with the engine monitor have let me be more in tune with things.

As for the rest of things - accessories, avionics, etc. Hard to say. I would imagine these just wear with use.

[Immelman]

Quote: pjsny78

Sorry if this comes across kind of harsh but it’s a touchy subject to me.

[Cris]

Quote: Bnicolett

My airplane, before I purchased it was flown about 5 -10 hours per year for the last 5 years.  I put some money into it but nothing really happened to it that I would attribute to lack of use.  I put about 70 hours on the Mooney this first year and expect to do about the same every year with a minimum of 50 hours.  

My experience is exactly the same with my A/C. It has been squalk free this first year & I am a happy camper.  Even though I had a few things that needed to be corrected due to a so-so pre-buy they were relatively minor ie bad batt/amp gauge, a small crack in the muffler (discovered at annual) and a poorly adjusted gear door. This was on an 1999 aircraft with 310 hrs TTwhich now has just 400TT.  

[rorythedog]

i think just plain luck has a lot to do with it.  over the years i've flown my planes frequently(some weeks every day) and infrequently(sitting for 2 months waiting for a part)...250 hrs. per year and 50 per yr....long flights, short hops...fast or slow...high, low......lop and rop...hot, cold....i've done engine shocking descents...hot climbs...you name the mistake or supposed engine operating error and i've done it.

but my planes have been almost as reliable as a car....my current engine(io360) went 2250 hrs smoh and it was fine when they took it apart.  these iycomings are amazing engines. 

[1964-M20E]

In the 1.5 years I’ve owned my 64 E model and I believe 1 time I went to fly and was not able to.

 

Flat tire main gear valve stem broke??

 

Other issues that interfered with flying were:

Generator died while returning home upgraded to the plane power alt

 

Now at my first annual we did change a number of items that were postponed by the previous owner as well as some other surprises and it took 2 months. :-((

 

Over all pretty good considering what I’ve heard and read and I’ve flow about 140 hours since I purchased the plane.

 

Yes our planes are more finicky than present day cars but if you look back to the 50’s and 60’s and 70’s I think you will see similar things with cars.

I do feel that frequent flying keeps the bugs out of the plane and the pilot.

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: pjsny78

I am still waiting to get the bugs out of my plane. After 300 hours and getting the plane to a zero squawk state, I have yet to see a time where I am good for more than 10hrs or so. I have heard all kinds of things. Mainly if you fly more the less maintenance you will have. Bullshit I say to this. I fly 50 hrs. A month and its ridiculous. If planes were like cars no one would buy them because of the maintenance involved. Sorry if this comes across kind of harsh but it’s a touchy subject to me.

[rbridges]

my plane has only averaged 50 hrs/year since '65.  It made it to around 2000 hrs when they OH it in '96.  It seems to be running well.  My $$ has been spent on non-engine stuff so far (knock on wood).  The only thing "under the hood" have been the battery, engine mounts and landing light.  I plan to do an oil analysis at my next change.

[scottfromiowa]

I don't know the answer to your question in specific hours...I wish I did.  I do know that my plane had sat for over ten years with less than 5 hours/year average use.  The case halves developed a leak.  I had to replace DG and AH.  Fuel tanks seap (especially if over 1/2 full) generator went bad, voltage regulator, boost pump, battery, tire tube(s), IN FIRST SIX MONTHS OF OWNERSHIP...Sitting is NOT good for an airplane.

[201er]

Quote: Bnicolette

Hello fellow aviators.  The thread regarding partnerships got me thinking about this question and I was curious if anybody has ever heard of a round about number for annual usage to preclude any mechanical issues.

[201er]

Quote: pjsny78

I am still waiting to get the bugs out of my plane. After 300 hours and getting the plane to a zero squawk state, I have yet to see a time where I am good for more than 10hrs or so. I have heard all kinds of things. Mainly if you fly more the less maintenance you will have. Bullshit I say to this. I fly 50 hrs. A month and its ridiculous. If planes were like cars no one would buy them because of the maintenance involved. Sorry if this comes across kind of harsh but it’s a touchy subject to me.

[jetdriven]

Fly it at least every 14 days to keep your engine and oter moving parts (gyros, accessories, prop, flap motor, trim system) happy.

[Cris]

Mystery Oil, Camguard & howl at the moon on alternate Suns keeps the broken hardware troll at bay!! 

[pjsny78]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

 Yup...you need to do what we discussed by email...(after your paint, of course.)

I just try to buy my planes at manufacturer spec (read: Send it to preferred MSC at purchase).  Then fly the wings off it for a couple months.  Handle squawks as necessary and fly happy.

So far I've had a 7200 hour airframe (M20J) that never left me stranded.  I put almost 200 hours/year on it.  Now I own a 1500 hour airframe (M20K) that has been an absolute joy.

I've witnessed 2 planes sell that I wouldn't touch because the owners refused to make them Mooney spec prior to purchase.  They are each eating their respective owners alive.

For me, I think the plane needs to be flown at least once a week.

[John Pleisse]

Less than 50 per year sends up flags. This, IMHO, is the absolutely minimum.

[PilotDerek]

I was always under the impression the main reason to fly often was the good of the engine. Running it fequently to keep it lubercated and burn off any possible moisture. I think actual time may be more important than hours. I agree with what Immelman said ".. and to that end I think its more about how often rather than how many hours per year. I could take a big trip, then park it for a few months letting the cam rust". If I fly it for a 100hrs in a month but not another hr the rest of the year that seems worse than if I fly it for an hour or so every week.  Of course this is all just my humble opionin.  

[John Pleisse]

Quote: PilotDerek

I was always under the impression the main reason to fly often was the good of the engine. Running it fequently to keep it lubercated and burn off any possible moisture. I think actual time may be more important than hours. I agree with what Immelman said ".. and to that end I think its more about how often rather than how many hours per year. I could take a big trip, then park it for a few months letting the cam rust". If I fly it for a 100hrs in a month but not another hr the rest of the year that seems worse than if I fly it for an hour or so every week.  Of course this is all just my humble opionin.  

[Seth]

I don't have a good answer for you and did not reply to the poll because it would be speculation, but do indeed want to contribute. 

My former 1967 F had some issues in the first 100 hours, and I took care of some deffered maintenance of other systems from the previous owner at the first annual.  I then had a good run of no problems.  During the last 150 hours of ownership - the last year I had it, I felt that on every trip something else that was more than minor but less than major had an issue.  This was everything from a tachometer to a solonoid to a aux fuel pump to a replaced nose tire (it was time), and other isssues.  I felt that for the hours I flew that plane in three years, I was luck the first 350 and then had to pay for some wear items the next 150. 

I admit that did have some play in the decision making process to sell and get a newer airframe.  I figured it was time to upgrade certain parts, and I decided to get the newer Mooney with more capable equipment that was indeed faster.  So far in about 40 hours of flying the new Mooney, I've overhauled the engine (part of the purchase deal) put some panel upgrades in (again at purchase), and have had a small oil leak that was covered by the overhaul shop (vacum pump was the locaition of the leak and it ended up being a bad seal), and now that I've flown it for a bit, i'm going to send off the engine data to Gami to try to level out the fuel distribution.  So far I'm lucky, but I do try to keep some cash ready, as owning an airplane means something can break anytime.

I did ask my MSC if with the F those last 150 hours if the plane was tired or if it was normal to have something break on every long trip, but they assured me the airframe was in good condition and that I simply had a few parts wear out.  Other parts I proactivly replaced before this sort of thing would happen, and again, I knock on wood, have only been stranded by weather or other factors, my aircraft has been good dispatch reliability wise on all occasions thus far.

Take care,

-Seth

[Immelman]

Quote: pjsny78

 

 But to make a long story short I have not had any major engine issues thank god except for a new starter, exhaust hardware, fuel servo issues, vac pump and a bunch of stuff that goes along with that, all gaskets and seals on the engine had to be replaced with silicone. Push rod tube seals.   This is what I can remember off the top of my head.  But it seems like everything else I have had issues with. Lately it’s been a host of avionics problems.

 

[Sabremech]

I'm always working on something on my Mooney to make it better. I've only had one issue where I turned around and landed back at home as something didn't seem right with the prop. I've had my airplane for a year and a half with little unscheduled maint. It's not an apples to apples comparison since I'm an A&P/IA so maint doesn't cause me grief or the cost.

[jetdriven]

The labofr is free but wait till you have to buy a 2,000$ fuel cap !

[pjsny78]

Quote: jetdriven

The labofr is free but wait till you have to buy a 2,000$ fuel cap !

[jetdriven]

A Shaw 457-1015 for the O&N bladder STC. There is no substitute.  Oh, and the O-rings for it cost 132$.    That was a happy "up yours" day when I found that out.

O&N had to change supppliers and re-do their drawings for the STC to get away from that.

[pjsny78]

I will never buy a bladder. I am a huge Weep No More Fan after what paul beck did to my plane recently.

so thankfully i will not have to see that bill.