Bad Stories about Plane Purchases

In article , Christopher
Brian Colohan wrote:

[snip]
Because of this, as an astute buyer, I will be sure to explore any
potential problems during negotiation, if only to allow me to properly
negotiate a fair price.

Do you agree that "fair price" is not the same as "best price"?

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

Bob Noel writes:
In article , Christopher
Brian Colohan wrote:

[snip]
Because of this, as an astute buyer, I will be sure to explore any
potential problems during negotiation, if only to allow me to properly
negotiate a fair price.

Do you agree that "fair price" is not the same as "best price"?

If both parties have equal skills as negotiators then they will be the
same. If not, then the better negotiator will have an advantage -- is
this fair? Not if the better negotiator recognizes the situation and
takes undue advantage of it.

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

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
well, it's hardly ethical to base a negotiating point on a
bogus premise.

It may or may not be a bogus premise. The buyer will tell the seller what
they feel the airplane is worth. For some buyers, damage that occurred 30
years ago may well be a factor in their opinion of what the airplane is
worth. That usually would mean that that buyer would not get to buy that
particular plane, but it doesn't make the buyer unscrupulous.

In any case, the buyer does not have the ability to force a price on the
seller. A seller who accepts a price from a buyer on the basis of
information provided to that seller by the buyer has no reason for
complaint. They could just as easily have verified the information
themselves, rather than relying on the buyer.

Negotiation is an art poorly understood by most. It seems that there are
some people who believe that unless both the buyer and the seller come
completely clean with their ability to pay, desire to sell or buy, and every
tidbit of information that might affect the bid and buy price, some sort of
bad behavior is at work. When in fact, not having those things happen is
just what happens when a couple of strangers haggle.

Nothing unscrupulous about it.

Like I said, there are plenty of ways for a buyer to be unscrupulous, but
trying to talk the price down on the basis of damage history, no matter how
old, just isn't one of them.

Pete

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.

Karma. Any 172 that survives 5000 hours of rental use without a good
pranging must have gotten an extra coat of magic pixie dust at the
factory.

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.

Shh! If everybody starts figuring out that a modest scrape a few
decades ago doesn't make a plane unflyable a lot of the good deals
will disappear.

In Alaska the definition of an salable PA-18 is one on which you can
still make out the registration plate. They'll happily rebuild the
whole plane around it with 90% new parts. But hey, it'll still have a
major damage history.

-cwk.

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)


Jon,

I guess my experience would fall into the "bad" category. A few items to
reinforce other comments that have been posted. I would recommend a
complete annual inspection, by an *independent authorized service
center*. Ensure you exorcise the airplane and engine throughout every
phase of flight and test every system on the airplane. Finally, ensure
you have sufficient financial resources in reserve, when it comes time
to overhaul or replace the engine.

If I was to do it over again: "Join a club!"

Details:
I searched quite a while for an airplane that was going to meet my
needs. I ended up purchasing a low-time experimental plane with 100
hours STOH (580 hours total). I had the airframe inspected by a
knowledgeable composite specialist, performed a conditional annual
inspection and had an A&P inspect the engine and review the airframe
logs for problems and AD compliance. I flew the airplane and inspected
the systems and engine operation prior to the purchase. NOTE: If I was
to do this over, I would ensure I run the engine at max-RPM for a while
to observe temps and pressures (my flight consisted of mostly cruise RPM
operations)

Two weeks and seven hours after the purchase, on a turn to cross-wind,
gulp, lost the number two cylinder, IO-360, the cylinder head seperated
from the barrel. There was nothing to suggest a problem w/ the cylinder
prior to the failure, engine logs were clean, engine temps and pressures
were all w/in normal limits, and compressions were all 75+ on the
inspection. I'm still adding up the damage, but I was certainly not
mentally or financially prepared for this sudden misfortune.

Good luck,

Gary