Airworth Hangar vs CAMP Systems — what’s different.

As of 2026-05-05. CAMP is the institutional product for turbine and biz-jet airworthiness; Hangar is for the owner-pilot of a piston single. This page exists because high-spec single-engine owners (TBM, PC-12, Cirrus Vision, light jets-of-one) sometimes look at CAMP and ask whether it fits a fly-it-yourself airframe. Usually no.

At a glance

Aircraft fit — turbine/biz-jet vs piston single

CAMP’s product is built around the airworthiness of turbine and business-jet aircraft, including helicopters . The data model assumes corporate operators with dedicated maintenance staff, dispatchers, and dispatch reliability metrics that matter for revenue operations.

Hangar’s data model assumes the owner-pilot of a piston single. Eight aircraft templates ship today — C172S, C182T, PA-28-181, SR22 G6, DA40 NG, DA42 VI, A36, TB20 — plus fully custom configurations. The maintenance triggers, AD applicability engine, and recordkeeping templates fit Part-ML and Part 91 piston ops, not turbine corporate ops.

If you fly a piston single, you are over-buying with CAMP. If you fly a King Air B200 in scheduled corporate ops, Hangar is under-built for you. The dividing line is not aircraft sophistication — it’s whether a maintenance manager exists.

Pricing model

CAMP’s pricing is enterprise; not published per-aircraft per-month on the public site . Sales-led; a quote depends on fleet size and modules.

Hangar is free during early access. We are not promising “always free.” We are not collecting payment information today. When pricing lands, the structure will be sized for the owner-pilot — single aircraft to small group of six — not for fleet operators.

Sales motion — committee vs self-serve

CAMP is sales-led: a procurement committee, a multi-month evaluation, an enterprise contract, an implementation engagement. That model is the right shape for a Part 145 organization adopting CAMP across a fleet of 30 turbine aircraft; it is the wrong shape for an owner-pilot deciding which app to install on their iPad.

Hangar is self-serve: join the waitlist, get activated, import your aircraft. No quote, no procurement, no engagement. This is a deliberate constraint on Hangar’s growth model — we do not sell to operators big enough to need a CAMP-shaped engagement.

Regulatory regime coverage

CAMP supports EASA and FAA across turbine fleets . Hangar supports EASA Part-ML and FAR Part 91 with per-aircraft override; we do not currently support UK CAA. CAMP, given its market, covers regulatory regimes Hangar does not (turbine-specific maintenance manuals, OEM data feeds for biz-jet airframes).

When CAMP is the better fit

• You operate a fleet of turbine or business-jet aircraft.
• You have a dedicated maintenance management function (Part 145, Part-CAMO equivalent).
• You need OEM-grade data feeds for turbine maintenance manuals and revisions.
• Enterprise procurement is a normal part of how you buy software.

When Hangar is the better fit

• You own and fly one or a few piston-single aircraft yourself.
• You want self-serve activation; no quote, no committee.
• Part-ML or Part 91 is the regime you operate under.
• A small monthly per-aircraft cost (when pricing lands) is more your shape than a five-figure annual enterprise contract.

What we are not telling you

We do not have a screenshot-dated audit of CAMP’s exact current product modules, pricing, or regulatory regime list. CAMP is a much larger product with many more capabilities than this page lists; we focus on the dimensions that matter for an owner-pilot deciding whether CAMP is the right shape. Verify on CAMP Systems (rel=external) before quoting.

Compare also: Hangar vs Coflyt.