High time airframes.... opinions..

Anyone have experiences, good or bad, with high time airframes (10,000
hrs). What Im specifically inquiring about are life limitations or
"frequent" issues on these airframes. Im referring to non-orphaned,
180-200 hp single piston engine frames. Most commonly fitting this bill
would be former flight school aircraft and pipeline patrol.

Im admiring a high time patrol a/c from afar, and while the engine is
fresh, the frame has passed the 10k mark. I had a friend who had a great
deal purchasing such an aircraft a few years ago, but Im sure he didnt
realize much when he sold it. Resale issues aside, what have ye to say?

Dave
PP ASEL

Mike Granby wrote:
: "Dave S" wrote:

: Resale issues aside, what have ye to say?

: Isn't there's an AD on the PA-28 wing spar that applies only to high-usage
: aircraft such as those used on pipeline patrol? Maintenance on such a bird
: would thus be more expensive.

There *WAS* an AD on high-time/unusual usage PA-28 airplanes, but it was
rescinded some time back and replaced with a Piper Service Letter (which
is not mandatory, despite what they say).

IMHO, I would have no problem buying a flight school airplane if it were
priced accordingly. I would stay well clear of a pipeline patrol airplane,
just because it's spent 10,000+ hours flying at 500 feet in the turbulence
at Vno.

--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)
"100% of the world is covered by air. Use it all" - Citation ad

Pipeline patrol aircraft and transmission wire patrol aircraft fly a few
hundred feet above the ground and undergo some tough and constant
turbulence. No attention was paid to this until a crash occurred, and metal
fatigue from the turbulence was the problem. I wouldn't touch a plane with
that history - of course, often you don't know the history and might buy the
plane without even knowing.

Flight school aircraft get a lot of wear, and you see it in the landing gear
and the retractable systems - flap guides and so on.

It's your choice - seems the posters here don't support your choice.


"Dave S" wrote in message
...
Anyone have experiences, good or bad, with high time airframes (10,000
hrs). What Im specifically inquiring about are life limitations or
"frequent" issues on these airframes. Im referring to non-orphaned,
180-200 hp single piston engine frames. Most commonly fitting this bill
would be former flight school aircraft and pipeline patrol.

Im admiring a high time patrol a/c from afar, and while the engine is
fresh, the frame has passed the 10k mark. I had a friend who had a great
deal purchasing such an aircraft a few years ago, but Im sure he didnt
realize much when he sold it. Resale issues aside, what have ye to say?

Dave
PP ASEL

Just don't go looking at high-time Piper PA38 Tomahawks, they have an explicit
end-of-airworthiness life on the wings at something like 10k or 11K hours and
certain parts of the tailfeathers must be replaced much sooner than that.

I personally know of a little Cessna 150 that has well over 11K hours on it, and
the owner has maintained it to near perfect condition since he bought it brand
new back in 1974. Probably will go another 10K. I took my first 9 lessons in
that plane and the airframe is still as strong as ever.

Dave,

I won't rehash the piper SB/AD issue, but if a PA28 is in your future, you
should know that the conventional wisdom, at least for PA28s, is that if you
aren't reasonably sure about the history of a high-time airframe and the
wings haven't been pulled, you should walk away. You'll find text to this
effect in several of the "buying a used plane" books which discuss the
model. Actually, pulling the wings has its own problems, as some planes
which complied with the AD had problems because the mechanics didn't pull
the wings properly.

If you're willing to invest the time, you might hit the NTSB database and
the service reports database for the types you're interested in.

The former can be found at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/query.asp
It may take some time, but you should be able to discover any recent
in-flight airframe failures, possibly due to cracks, etc.

Service reports can be found at:
http://av-info.faa.gov/isdr/
As an example, you can run a query for PIPER PA28* SPAR and get all the
goodies (this one is kind of annoying because the aforementioned query also
gives you SPARk plug problems, sigh).

cheers,
mark

"Dave S" wrote in message
...
OK.. lets try this again..

any DOCUMENTED problems other than the aformentioned Piper SB/former AD?

How about people who have owned such aircraft?

I am aware of the operating environments, what I am looking for are
known trouble issues... does one particular aircraft have cracks or need
spar replacements? Where are the problems found on particular models?

Im not looking for poster support, nor disapproval. Im looking for
experiences.

Dave

Patric Barry wrote:

Pipeline patrol aircraft and transmission wire patrol aircraft fly a few
hundred feet above the ground and undergo some tough and constant
turbulence. No attention was paid to this until a crash occurred, and
metal
fatigue from the turbulence was the problem. I wouldn't touch a plane
with
that history - of course, often you don't know the history and might buy
the
plane without even knowing.

Flight school aircraft get a lot of wear, and you see it in the landing
gear
and the retractable systems - flap guides and so on.

It's your choice - seems the posters here don't support your choice.


"Dave S" wrote in message
...

Anyone have experiences, good or bad, with high time airframes (10,000
hrs). What Im specifically inquiring about are life limitations or
"frequent" issues on these airframes. Im referring to non-orphaned,
180-200 hp single piston engine frames. Most commonly fitting this bill
would be former flight school aircraft and pipeline patrol.

Im admiring a high time patrol a/c from afar, and while the engine is
fresh, the frame has passed the 10k mark. I had a friend who had a great
deal purchasing such an aircraft a few years ago, but Im sure he didnt
realize much when he sold it. Resale issues aside, what have ye to say?

Dave
PP ASEL

On 2-Jul-2003, Dave S wrote:

OK.. lets try this again..

any DOCUMENTED problems other than the aformentioned Piper SB/former AD?

How about people who have owned such aircraft?


Some years back I bought (with partners) a C-172N that had close to 7000
hrs, and it had close to 9000 hours when we sold it. Prior to our purchase,
the plane had been used as an instrument (not primary) trainer for a local
FBO. I wouldn't say that we had any particular service difficulties other
than things simply wearing out. As I recall, the biggest culprits (in terms
of cost for maintenance) we

-seat rails (of course)

-flap track bearings and bushings

-door hinges and latches (including baggage door)

-control surface hinges (the trim tab hinge was a real bitch to replace).

We also had recurring problems with nose wheel shimmy (despite rebuilding
the shimmy dampner twice and spending hours trying to shim he steering
scissors just so), and with cracks in the lower (metal) cowling and the
fiberglass cowling nose bowl.

Structurally, however, the plane remained sound despite the fact that it
lived its entire non-flying life tied down outside.

One thing to remember is that a 10,000 hour airplane that has been in
commercial service requiring 100 hr inspections has been through about 100
of them. This is a lot of taking apart and putting together of certain
items, with resultant wear and tear.

-Elliott Drucker

I see these planes when they come in for maintenance, and there are
expensive issues which should be addressed and often aren't :

a) wing spar cracks - this can be addressed by removing the wing for
inspection and magnaflux. Costs money.
b) inspection of the stabilator bracket, and the tube which holds the
stabilator panels in place. Corrosion is being found in that tube where
paint stripper has gotten in there and caused corrosion. A standard
procedure is to remove the stabilator panels and inspect the tube for
corrosion. While it is easy to treat, it is expensive to replace the tube.
The bolts that hold the stabilator attachment frame in place need inspection
also.
c) doors wear and become misshaped - this can happen at any age and tt, and
results from people abusing the doors, which is common on rental planes.
d) landing gear wear - oleos may be pitted and may need removal and
rechroming.
e) flap track wear - this is common as planes age. Remove and replace the
tracks and install nylon rollers. Cracks will appear in slides and areas
where the planes have been tied out and the ailerons slop in the wind - this
puts great stress on the aileron stops and can lead to cracks.
f) hinges of all kinds wear and need replacing - parts and labor. Takes
time.
g) windshields and side windows - they wear and craze, and it just takes
money to replace.
h) fuel tanks - probably haven't been replaced in years and may need to be.
i) I don't need to talk about the engine. The accessories are expensive and
may need overhaul - remember the accessories are not an engine overhaul
necessity and so they may not have been overhauled at tbo and may need to
be.
j) paint, or course, and interior - both big items.

While these may seem obvious, the real point is that there are items like
the tanks, wing spar and tail assembly that may never have been inspected,
and should be. They are not 100 hour or annual items, yet they need to be
done at some time. If you buy the plane cheaply enough and can afford to
really have it maintained well, then these things may present little
problem.






"Dave S" wrote in message
...
OK.. lets try this again..

any DOCUMENTED problems other than the aformentioned Piper SB/former AD?

How about people who have owned such aircraft?

I am aware of the operating environments, what I am looking for are
known trouble issues... does one particular aircraft have cracks or need
spar replacements? Where are the problems found on particular models?

Im not looking for poster support, nor disapproval. Im looking for
experiences.

Dave

Patric Barry wrote:

Pipeline patrol aircraft and transmission wire patrol aircraft fly a few
hundred feet above the ground and undergo some tough and constant
turbulence. No attention was paid to this until a crash occurred, and
metal
fatigue from the turbulence was the problem. I wouldn't touch a plane
with
that history - of course, often you don't know the history and might buy
the
plane without even knowing.

Flight school aircraft get a lot of wear, and you see it in the landing
gear
and the retractable systems - flap guides and so on.

It's your choice - seems the posters here don't support your choice.


"Dave S" wrote in message
...

Anyone have experiences, good or bad, with high time airframes (10,000
hrs). What Im specifically inquiring about are life limitations or
"frequent" issues on these airframes. Im referring to non-orphaned,
180-200 hp single piston engine frames. Most commonly fitting this bill
would be former flight school aircraft and pipeline patrol.

Im admiring a high time patrol a/c from afar, and while the engine is
fresh, the frame has passed the 10k mark. I had a friend who had a great
deal purchasing such an aircraft a few years ago, but Im sure he didnt
realize much when he sold it. Resale issues aside, what have ye to say?

Dave
PP ASEL

Thank you Patrick and Ed Rucker for the facts..

Dave

Patric Barry wrote:

I see these planes when they come in for maintenance, and there are
expensive issues which should be addressed and often aren't :

a) wing spar cracks - this can be addressed by removing the wing for
inspection and magnaflux. Costs money.
b) inspection of the stabilator bracket, and the tube which holds the
stabilator panels in place. Corrosion is being found in that tube where
paint stripper has gotten in there and caused corrosion. A standard
procedure is to remove the stabilator panels and inspect the tube for
corrosion. While it is easy to treat, it is expensive to replace the tube.
The bolts that hold the stabilator attachment frame in place need inspection
also.
c) doors wear and become misshaped - this can happen at any age and tt, and
results from people abusing the doors, which is common on rental planes.
d) landing gear wear - oleos may be pitted and may need removal and
rechroming.
e) flap track wear - this is common as planes age. Remove and replace the
tracks and install nylon rollers. Cracks will appear in slides and areas
where the planes have been tied out and the ailerons slop in the wind - this
puts great stress on the aileron stops and can lead to cracks.
f) hinges of all kinds wear and need replacing - parts and labor. Takes
time.
g) windshields and side windows - they wear and craze, and it just takes
money to replace.
h) fuel tanks - probably haven't been replaced in years and may need to be.
i) I don't need to talk about the engine. The accessories are expensive and
may need overhaul - remember the accessories are not an engine overhaul
necessity and so they may not have been overhauled at tbo and may need to
be.
j) paint, or course, and interior - both big items.

While these may seem obvious, the real point is that there are items like
the tanks, wing spar and tail assembly that may never have been inspected,
and should be. They are not 100 hour or annual items, yet they need to be
done at some time. If you buy the plane cheaply enough and can afford to
really have it maintained well, then these things may present little
problem.






"Dave S" wrote in message
...

OK.. lets try this again..

any DOCUMENTED problems other than the aformentioned Piper SB/former AD?

How about people who have owned such aircraft?

I am aware of the operating environments, what I am looking for are
known trouble issues... does one particular aircraft have cracks or need
spar replacements? Where are the problems found on particular models?

Im not looking for poster support, nor disapproval. Im looking for
experiences.

Dave

Patric Barry wrote:


Pipeline patrol aircraft and transmission wire patrol aircraft fly a few
hundred feet above the ground and undergo some tough and constant
turbulence. No attention was paid to this until a crash occurred, and

metal

fatigue from the turbulence was the problem. I wouldn't touch a plane

with

that history - of course, often you don't know the history and might buy

the

plane without even knowing.

Flight school aircraft get a lot of wear, and you see it in the landing

gear

and the retractable systems - flap guides and so on.

It's your choice - seems the posters here don't support your choice.


"Dave S" wrote in message
...


Anyone have experiences, good or bad, with high time airframes (10,000
hrs). What Im specifically inquiring about are life limitations or
"frequent" issues on these airframes. Im referring to non-orphaned,
180-200 hp single piston engine frames. Most commonly fitting this bill
would be former flight school aircraft and pipeline patrol.

Im admiring a high time patrol a/c from afar, and while the engine is
fresh, the frame has passed the 10k mark. I had a friend who had a great
deal purchasing such an aircraft a few years ago, but Im sure he didnt
realize much when he sold it. Resale issues aside, what have ye to say?

Dave
PP ASEL

"non" wrote in message
...
I personally know of a little Cessna

little one, huh? Wasn't aware they came in different sizes. Hmmm..

The 172s develop cracks in the stabilizer spar, 150s develop cracks in
the fin attach fittings, and the anchor nuts for those bolts will
crack. 150s also develop enough wear in the rudder hinges that the
rudder stops will go past the stop bolts and jam the rudder hard over,
killing all on board. There's an AD on this, as well as the fin anchor
nut propblem.
Cessna has numerous service bulletins on various age-related
issues on their airplanes, and my experience has been that most folks
ignore them, since they're not "mandatory" like an AD. The cracking
stab spar fits into that one, and almost any 172 with 5000 hours on it
will have that cracking. Many folks move their airplanes by pushing
down on the stab to turn it; Cessna has determined that this will
crack that stab spar much sooner. We don't let our instructors and
students do it. It also deforms the nose rib at the stab root. If any
pilot saw how light the structure is in there, he'd never touch that
stab again. The forces involved in lifting the nose by puching on the
stab are much higher than those in normal flight, since the main
wheels are well behind the aerodynamic centre of pressure.
Cessna has a Continuing Airworthiness Program that we also follow,
and things like engine mount crack inspection at 10,000 hours and
every 2000 thereafter is listed; we've found cracks at 7000 hours, and
at 10,000 we found five more. The wing spar roots and carrythoughs are
to be eddy-current tested at 12,000 hours. We're not there yet but I
wouldn't be surprised if we find some small cracks.
If you can't find evidence in the logs that the mechanic has
been paying attention at least to ADs and SBs, you can expect some
expensive repairs.

Dan