High time airframe question

On Jul 19, 6:55 am, Mike Spera wrote:

High time airplane owners will tell you it is a non issue.

Low time owners will tell you to avoid high time airframes like the plague.

And mechanics who work on higher-time light aircraft, like me,
will tell you that all designs have their weak points that need
checking, and that many mechanics either don't know those weak points
or don't care. High-time airplanes that did nothing but long cross-
countries won't be likely to have the fatigue problems that we find in
trainers, but at the same time, the owners of those cross-country 172s
might be doing things that break stuff, like pushing down on the stab
to maneuver the airplane on the ground (breaking the forward stab
spar) or using grass or gravel runways that cause a lot of fuselage
flexing while taxiing over rougher ground (cracking the doorposts in a
spot that is very hard to see and unlikely to get looked at). Cessna
has a number of SEBs on such items, as well as the Continuing
Airworthiness Program stuff that cover more of these issues. The
Cessna R182 (182RG) has its problems, too, such as cracking gear
actuators ($8000 for a new casting) and aft fuselage bulkhead cracks.
Just because no 172s have come apart in flight (that I know of)
doesn't mean that they'll not start doing so. Sooner or later one
will, and I wouldn't want to be one of the people in it. Many owners
think they're getting good maintenance (because their shop tells them
so) and when we look at one of those airplanes we find the usual
cracks. And cracked or broken exhaust components, which will either
poison you or set fire to the airplane; take your pick. And many other
things, too.
If these cracks are caught by your mechanic, they won't kill
you but they'll kill your bank account. If we have a choice between a
"well-maintained" (yeah, right) older high-timer and one that has sat
for years, I'll take the sitter as long as it doesn't have corrosion
issues (humidity, salt air, or non-human residents). Both airplanes
will need new engines and interiors and other plastic and rubber bits
replaced. The high-timer will need structural repairs, maybe a lot of
them. They're not cheap. By the time you're done you could have far
more tied up in the airplane than it would ever be worth in resale
value.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Jul 19, 6:55 am, Mike Spera wrote:
If these cracks are caught by your mechanic, they won't kill
you but they'll kill your bank account. If we have a choice between a
"well-maintained" (yeah, right) older high-timer and one that has sat
for years, I'll take the sitter as long as it doesn't have corrosion
issues (humidity, salt air, or non-human residents). Both airplanes
will need new engines and interiors and other plastic and rubber bits
replaced. The high-timer will need structural repairs, maybe a lot of
them. They're not cheap. By the time you're done you could have far
more tied up in the airplane than it would ever be worth in resale
value.

There may be some dud A&Ps out there, but there's also a lot of great ones
that have extensive knowledge of older aircraft. Just because an aircraft
is high time doesn't mean it WILL require structural repairs, and even if
they do, not all such repairs are expensive as some can be addressed by stop
drilling or other solutions. Just because the aircraft is high time,
doesn't mean it WILL need a new engine. In fact, it's less likely to need
one. An older aircraft that's sat for several years or has never had an
overhaul WILL need one as well as a new interior and probably new glass,
whereas the high time aircraft stands a good chance of having things like
interior and glass replaced at some point and definitely has had the engine
reworked or replaced. Everything really boils down to a proper pre-buy from
a knowledgeable mechanic which is just as important regardless of how much
time the airframe has.

At 9,000 hrs, I would definitely consider my airplane high time, but it's
still going strong and there's the same type out there still going strong
with twice that many hours. Since I fly the thing only about 200 hrs per
year, it's going to take 10 years just to get 2,000 more hours assuming I
still have it by then. Since I'm confident my aircraft is structurally
sound, the chances of it needing a significant structural repair are pretty
much the same as a low time aircraft.