"James M. Knox" wrote in message ...

Second issue, could this aircraft be called "no damage history"? In my
opinion, absolutely not. Both wings, rudder, and vertical? That's
pretty durn major IMHO. OTOH, those items are designed to come off. If
they were replaced with undamaged replacements, then one *could* argue
that there is no longer any damaged items on the plane.

Of course if you damage a plane such that these parts need replacing, one has to
beg the question what else might have been damaged. At least he disclosed it.
With those red flags, I'd never buy the airplane for the price he's wanting (It
hasn't cleared the reserve at $35K and the BIN is $40K so I suspect that is the price
he expects to get). No way would I would buy it without further inspection.
It might be a good price, but you can't tell just on the basis of the description.

His KING radios he makes as a selling point are junk (one 170 and one MAC
170 upgrade, sheesh). Also his "big one owner" selling point is sort of countered
by the fact that it's been abused by renter pilots for almost 9000 hours.

Wonder what happened at ~1700 hours when the engine was removed.

The 1995 crash was "The airplane sustained substantial damage when it nosed over during the
landing roll following a forced landing." But that would seem to be later in the history than
1700 hours. So in addition to the "repaired damage", there was most likely a prop strike
(on albeit a windmilling engine).

The 1997 "runway light" incident was really a collision with the VASI's after a bounced
landing. Again the report says "substantially damaged." A little more than just running
over a runway edge light as suggested.