Bad Stories about Plane Purchases

Hi John

One thing that I don't understand, and hopefully someone here will
enlighten me, is why it is so sacred to have an aircraft that hasn't had
accident damage.
Two of my friends each have aircraft that had accident damage over 30
years ago.
So What?
They have flown beautifully for more than 30 years since the accident -
so what is the big deal? I absolutely don't get it. - It would be
different if the accident was 5 flight hours ago - but these are more
than a major TBO away.

Tony


In article ,
Jon Kraus wrote:

I am looking into purchasing my own plane... I think that I am pretty
aware of the costs (as much as a non-owner can be). I would like to
hear from those of you who have unfortunately have had a bad (expensive
or otherwise)experience with a plane purchase. I will also post for good
experiences. Thanks !!

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
(possible Mooney buyer)





--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument
Cessna 172H C-GICE

"tony roberts" wrote in message
news:nospam-4DDD2A.22064411082004@shawnews...
One thing that I don't understand, and hopefully someone here will
enlighten me, is why it is so sacred to have an aircraft that hasn't had
accident damage.

IMHO, it depends on when the damage occurred. Recent damage history is
certainly cause for concern. Presumably the airplane has been repaired to
its original airworthiness standards, but you never really know for sure.
Better to have someone else fly the plane for awhile to prove it.

Damage that occurred 5 or 10 years ago is much less of an issue. As you
suggest, planes that have been damage can be and are repaired to perfectly
normal, flyable condition.

In the end, it's as much a market value thing as anything else. It's not so
much that you want to strictly avoid airplanes with damage history as it is
that you don't want to pay as much for one, since most other people wouldn't
either. The more recent the damage, the greater the discount ought to be.
That said, in any case it would be unusual for the discount to be very
large, even with recent damage. I could see very recent damage history
reducing the price by as much as 10%, maybe 15% worst-case for very serious
damage (for damage that's been properly repaired, of course).

Pete

In article nospam-4DDD2A.22064411082004@shawnews, tony roberts
wrote:

One thing that I don't understand, and hopefully someone here will
enlighten me, is why it is so sacred to have an aircraft that hasn't had
accident damage.

Look at it this way: when considering Cessnas and Pipers, why take a
chance on an aircraft with recent damage history when there are so
many other aircraft available?

Implied by my use of "recent" is the recognition that old old
old damage history that was properly repaired shouldn't be
an issue.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

The issue arises over what different people, namely the buyer, the seller,
and each of their mechanics, consider and define "properly repaired",
"completely repaired", "adequately repaired", "repaired by a Brand C or P or
XYZ certified repair station", or "repaired to new condition". None of
those things actually tell you how well it was repaired.

Certain types of damage may go unseen by a mechanic that thinks he's
"properly repairing" the plane, and then those things get covered up by
fuselage skin and may be in locations where inspection plates just don't
allow a good view. It also may be impractical to remove the skin to
properly view the repairs during a pre-buy.

Depending on the type of damage, you may or may not be able to determine how
the airplane was flown. One example would be a replaced or repaired
firewall on a 182. If the plane was consistently and repeatedly landed hard
on it's nose wheel that the firewall buckled, what else might be slightly
"tweaked" in the engine mounts, landing gear, or airframe??

IMHO, damage history, unless completely explained and repairs well
documented and "inspectable" give me a certain "fear of the unknown" and the
price should be adjusted accordingly.

Jim Burns


"tony roberts" wrote in message
news:nospam-4DDD2A.22064411082004@shawnews...
Hi John

One thing that I don't understand, and hopefully someone here will
enlighten me, is why it is so sacred to have an aircraft that hasn't had
accident damage.
Two of my friends each have aircraft that had accident damage over 30
years ago.
So What?
They have flown beautifully for more than 30 years since the accident -
so what is the big deal? I absolutely don't get it. - It would be
different if the accident was 5 flight hours ago - but these are more
than a major TBO away.

Tony


In article ,
Jon Kraus wrote:

I am looking into purchasing my own plane... I think that I am pretty
aware of the costs (as much as a non-owner can be). I would like to
hear from those of you who have unfortunately have had a bad (expensive
or otherwise)experience with a plane purchase. I will also post for good
experiences. Thanks !!

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
(possible Mooney buyer)





--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument
Cessna 172H C-GICE


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.736 / Virus Database: 490 - Release Date: 8/9/2004

tony roberts wrote:

Two of my friends each have aircraft that had accident damage over 30
years ago. So What?

You are quite correct. Properly repaired accident damage is no problem, and the
longer it's been since the repair, the less important it is. Unless, as you say, the
damage is recent, it's just a tool that unscrupulous buyers use to try to talk the
price down.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

Please clarify your statements.

What do you mean by "unscrupulous buyer" and that last bit about
"God's opinion about money".

Seems you may have your "knickers in a bundle"

Paul

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
tony roberts wrote:

Two of my friends each have aircraft that had accident damage over 30
years ago. So What?

You are quite correct. Properly repaired accident damage is no problem, and the
longer it's been since the repair, the less important it is. Unless, as you say, the
damage is recent, it's just a tool that unscrupulous buyers use to try to talk the
price down.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

Paul wrote:

Please clarify your statements.

What do you mean by "unscrupulous buyer" and that last bit about
"God's opinion about money".

Unscrupulous means people without scruples (look it up). Someone who attempts to
reduce the price based on a 30-year-old damage history has none. As to the quote,
it's an old Irish saying. Live with it.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Unscrupulous means people without scruples (look it up).
Someone who attempts to reduce the price based on a
30-year-old damage history has none.

Only the seller can control the price. A buyer who tries to
"unscrupulously" control the price will get outbid by someone else.

I can think of ways a buyer can be unscrupulous, but trying to negotiate a
lower price based on information the *seller* provided or which is
documented as true hardly seems unscrupulous to me. The seller is free to
accept or reject the buyer's logic, as they see fit.

Pete

In article , "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

Unscrupulous means people without scruples (look it up).
Someone who attempts to reduce the price based on a
30-year-old damage history has none.

Only the seller can control the price. A buyer who tries to
"unscrupulously" control the price will get outbid by someone else.

I can think of ways a buyer can be unscrupulous, but trying to negotiate a
lower price based on information the *seller* provided or which is
documented as true hardly seems unscrupulous to me. The seller is free to
accept or reject the buyer's logic, as they see fit.

well, it's hardly ethical to base a negotiating point on a
bogus premise.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

Bob Noel writes:
well, it's hardly ethical to base a negotiating point on a
bogus premise.

Really? In which case buyers should just hand over all their money to
sellers?

If a buyer is going to negotiate, they need a reason to ask for a
lower price. It could be a real reason, such as "I don't have that
much money", or it could be a mostly made up reason such as "perhaps I
can get a better deal up the street". But what it really comes down
to is "I don't want to pay you that much, and I don't think anyone
else will either." If the seller disagrees, they can take a risk and
try to sell to someone else.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751