High time airframe question

xyzzy wrote:
Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
AFTT.


In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of a
total time?

In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of a
total time?

Good point.

A lot of folks are practically begging to sell right now. It's a great time
to be a buyer.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of
a total time?

Good point.

A lot of folks are practically begging to sell right now. It's a great
time to be a buyer.

True, except that about all of the nice 182RGs seem to have that
butt-ugly brown/orange interior with orange or brown paint! Man that is
ugly...

Matt

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
xyzzy wrote:
Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
AFTT.


In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of a
total time?

Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which are
very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of time and
they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not $50K
worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more inclined
to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a good part of
it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside yoke).

Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which are
very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of time
and they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not
$50K worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more
inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a
good part of it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside
yoke).

My observations:
The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass, mags,
brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses, AND
overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND repainted
plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what the low buck,
high time bird has because the listing only shows the plane's generic
specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the plane's actual
equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine, damage history,
"suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the pics for the low
buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low light that it
could actually look like anything in real life (great to terrible). The
pics on the higher priced plane are in the full light of day and appear
to show a plane in top shape (well they BOTH had Cessna radios...).

If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a
better listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.

Good Luck,
Mike

"Mike Spera" wrote in message
m...


Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which are
very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of time and
they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not
$50K worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more
inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a
good part of it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside
yoke).

My observations:
The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass, mags,
brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses, AND
overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND repainted
plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what the low buck,
high time bird has because the listing only shows the plane's generic
specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the plane's actual
equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine, damage history,
"suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the pics for the low
buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low light that it could
actually look like anything in real life (great to terrible). The pics on
the higher priced plane are in the full light of day and appear to show a
plane in top shape (well they BOTH had Cessna radios...).

If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a better
listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.

You're assuming worst case scenario for the high time bird and best case
scenario for the low time bird. The high time bird is either in decent
shape, or it is highly overpriced because you can definitely buy a decent
172 of that vintage for $39K. As far as the low time bird goes, the
question that should be going through one's mind is why would someone sink
that kind of money in a nearly 30 year old aircraft just to sell it? My
guess is the plane probably sat in a field for years before someone started
to fix it up and they found some "skeletons" such as corrosion which was
going to cost significantly more to repair or one of a number of other
issues. There are "skeletons" that can be found in high time and low time
aircraft. Furthermore you certainly can't give full value to all the
improvements made to the low time bird because you will never be able to
recoup those investments (although the seller is certainly trying). The
bottom line is people put a premium on low time aircraft, and there's simply
not much reason for it. I'd rather have an aircraft that spent its life
flying than one that spent a good part of its life as a bird and wasp
refuge.

Mike wrote:
"Mike Spera" wrote in message
m...



Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in
many instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there
which are very well equipped because those who were in them spent a
lot of time and they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the
same speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might
be in a little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even
functionally, but not $50K worth. If I were in the market for such a
plane, I would be more inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it
almost certainly spent a good part of it's life as a trainer (notice
the wear on the rightside yoke).


My observations:
The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass,
mags, brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses,
AND overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND
repainted plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what
the low buck, high time bird has because the listing only shows the
plane's generic specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the
plane's actual equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine,
damage history, "suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the
pics for the low buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low
light that it could actually look like anything in real life (great to
terrible). The pics on the higher priced plane are in the full light
of day and appear to show a plane in top shape (well they BOTH had
Cessna radios...).

If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a
better listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.


You're assuming worst case scenario for the high time bird and best case
scenario for the low time bird. The high time bird is either in decent
shape, or it is highly overpriced because you can definitely buy a
decent 172 of that vintage for $39K. As far as the low time bird goes,
the question that should be going through one's mind is why would
someone sink that kind of money in a nearly 30 year old aircraft just to
sell it? My guess is the plane probably sat in a field for years before
someone started to fix it up and they found some "skeletons" such as
corrosion which was going to cost significantly more to repair or one of
a number of other issues. There are "skeletons" that can be found in
high time and low time aircraft. Furthermore you certainly can't give
full value to all the improvements made to the low time bird because you
will never be able to recoup those investments (although the seller is
certainly trying). The bottom line is people put a premium on low time
aircraft, and there's simply not much reason for it. I'd rather have an
aircraft that spent its life flying than one that spent a good part of
its life as a bird and wasp refuge.

Some great points Mike. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth on
this one. I must have been real crabby that night.

I do have to stick to my opinion about the condition of the low time,
high priced bird because it is based on the descriptions, data, and
pictures. That said, even if it is pristine, at $89k I believe it is
about 15% or so overpriced for this market. You are correct in that the
high time bird may not be all that bad. But the pics and (non)
description don't inspired confidence. I agree that it may not be the
disaster I suggested. Have to have a look and more info.

As to your point on "upgrades", I agree that they should not (and do
not) command a full payback. But I don't consider a 0 time engine an
upgrade and would tend towards near full value on engines. Paint and
interior are also not upgrades in my mind, but they do appear to only
fetch a fraction of their cost in the used arena (Vref says $3k for
interior and I believe $5k for paint). Most of the rest of the replaced
components are also not upgrades to me. But having the stuff replaced is
better than having a hundred "crap shoots" bolted to the beast that
could go at any minute because of age and/or wear. That said, at 11k
hours, they MUST have replaced lots of stuff on the high timer. Again,
the lack of description of that plane leaves us guessing.

When I think about upgrades, I think about higher HP engines, 1 piece
windshields, Powerflow exhaust, flap/gap seals and other speed mods,
late model color moving map GPS in the panel, custom built seats and
interiors, speed cowlings, aerodynamic wing/stab tips, etc. I tend to
think of an upgrade as something the factory never put in the plane.
Opinions may vary on what constitutes an upgrade. I'm not terribly
wedded to my definition. It is just a word.

I also have to agree that we would need to hear the "story" about the
low time bird. Why someone would sink the dollars into the thing is a
great question. This one has "owner contracted disease and shelved the
bird hoping for a comeback" written all over it. But to your point, it
could also be a resurrected disaster that sat rotting in the high weeds
for 25 years.

You see, we are not all righteous, stubborn jerks on the 'Net (although
some of my postings may sound that way - apologies to the more sensitive
readers).

Thanks for the counterpoints,
Mike

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:42:20 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy
wrote:

Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
AFTT.

the theoretical concern with high time aluminium aircraft is due to a
property of fatigue in aluminium.
in steel you can subject a component to stresses below a certain
threshold for as long as you like and it will not suffer fatigue.
Aluminium does not have that threshold. all loadings over the life of
the aircraft no matter how small gradually eat into the fatigue life
of the aircraft.

the rub is that 11000 hours doesnt tell you how may pieces of bad
turbulence it has encountered, how many thumper landings it has
suffered, how many times it has been flogged around overloaded, how
many high G manouvers it has enjoyed. so although you know it has done
11000 hours you have no idea how much has been eaten out of the
fatigue life of the aircraft.

our australian authorities are paranoid about this aspect of older
aircraft, however there has never been tinseled aircraft to give
weight to the fears.
the aircraft that have broken up in midair in australia have mainly
been designs like the aerocommander where it has been realised that
the stressing of the bent centre wing joint has substantially
underestimated the actual loads on the spar.

in the case of the warrior, let your eyes be the guide. fatigue leads
to cracking in thin skins and in fittings. does a close visual
inspection show deterioration in stressed areas?

the other problem you'll have is that the design life of the aircraft
was passed many years ago. some aspects of the construction work
against a long life. corrosion in the bare metal in the lap joints in
the skins can be a problem area. dissimilar metals in the wing attach
points can be a problem. areas of poor ventilation down in the flaps
can lead to intergranular corrosion. have a *good* look.

one other thing to consider is where you are going to fly it. if it
has lived 11000hours in the desert, taking it down to the coast and
parking it overnight on the grass will destroy it in quick time no
matter how good it was.

it could be a very good buy or it could be a lemon. only you can
decide this by very careful inspection of all the aircraft.

I was once interested in a warrior that was going at a good price.
I thought it not a good buy but a local LAME (A&P) obviously thought
us a bunch of mugs because he outbid us and got the aircraft.
It never actually returned to flying. in his haste he overlooked the
actual condition of the aircraft and went on the signed off logs.
the aircraft was actually totally shot in subtle ways and was
scrapped.

open your eyes. check it out carefully and have the balls to follow
through with what you decide.
remember, you dont have to buy *this* aircraft.

Stealth Pilot

In article ,
xyzzy wrote:

Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
AFTT.

How many of those hours were spent doing pipeline patrols or other
activities that are tough on the airframe? It is my recollection that
piper wing separations tended to occur on hightime airframes that
also spent considerable time doing pipeline patrols.

otoh - 11,000 hours on that warrior is how many hours per year?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

How many of those hours were spent doing pipeline patrols or other
activities that are tough on the airframe? It is my recollection that
piper wing separations tended to occur on hightime airframes that
also spent considerable time doing pipeline patrols.

otoh - 11,000 hours on that warrior is how many hours per year?

--
Bob Noel

I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
am I missing?