If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:44:31 -0500, "Henry Kisor"
wrote: but it wasn't the kind that picked up chicks. Far from it. ROTFLMFAO! I've been acussed of that in the past when I've offered to drive when going out with a few people. Well put. Thanks for the laugh. z |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Before spending a lot of time and money traveling to see the airplane, why
not have an objective person located nearby have a look? What we did in this case was arrange for a local mechanic (NOT the one doing regular maintenance on the plane) spend about an hour looking for obvious problems. This is NOT an adequate pre-buy, just an initial screening to keep you from wasting time and money on obvious dogs. A good $60-80 investment. I wonder what an A&P can actually tell in that amount of time. When I was shopping for a Champ most A&Ps said they would need at least 5 hours before they know much of anything. My Mooney pre-buy cost be $2500. I guess if there is something really obvious, this might help, but otherwise, I'm not sure. -Robert |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Mark
I own a Turbo Arrow III, Personally I would not be concerned with the TT, but with the engine time, almost 1200 hours on an 1800 hour engine, an engine that runs very hot and with a long history of cracking cyliners, to many potential problems. Expensive problems. Personally, I wouldnt touch a t-arrow with more then 400-500 hours on the engine. " wrote: I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet, but have had a few conversations with the owner about it. My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine. Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as this? I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to ask for an engine oil analysis among other things? I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to look at it, so I'm curious to hear how people handle that. More than one trip, I would guess. Any advice would be appreciated. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mark
the turbo arrow is a good plane. Allot of people who do not actually own a Turbo Arrow always seem to have nothing but horror stories to say about it or the engine. I have not had any problems with my engine or any major problems with landing gear, turbo or anything else. You can find turbo arrows with low time engines for sale that have really good avionics and upgrades already in them. Its a good 150 kt airplane thats nice and stable and as I said, no major problems. If you fly the plane hard its of course going to have problems, Fly it by the book and she will do you right. since you do not know how the previous owner flew it, try to find one with a low time engine. Where is this plane located at, if its near me I will take a peek at it for you. Jeff http://www.turboarrow3.com " wrote: I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet, but have had a few conversations with the owner about it. My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine. Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as this? I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to ask for an engine oil analysis among other things? I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to look at it, so I'm curious to hear how people handle that. More than one trip, I would guess. Any advice would be appreciated. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff wrote:
Mark I own a Turbo Arrow III, Personally I would not be concerned with the TT, but with the engine time, almost 1200 hours on an 1800 hour engine, an engine that runs very hot and with a long history of cracking cyliners, to many potential problems. Expensive problems. I wouldn't either if the TT is less than 10,000 or so and the airplane hasn't done a lot of low altitude work such as pipeline patrol, banner towing, etc. All Al structures are subject to fatigue and we just don't have a lot of experience with typical GA airframes with more than 10,000 hours TT. I know of several small airplanes with 8,000 or more hours, but I've seen only a few with more than 10,000 hours. I'd be leery flying one above 10,000 hours unless you know of several of that model that have say 14,000 or more just for POM. Matt |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff wrote in message ...
Mark the turbo arrow is a good plane. Allot of people who do not actually own a Turbo Arrow always seem to have nothing but horror stories to say about it The argument about looking at the owner's car is of course bogus. Not only is it not too fancy, but it will be full of airplane parts heading to or from the hangar. And all the miles will be city.... only driven to the airport and NAPA parts. Bill Hale |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
the turbo arrow is a good plane. Allot of people who do not actually own a
Would a Comanchie be a close alternative or an Arrow? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff wrote in
: the turbo arrow has a TSIO-360-F or -FB engine, its only 200 HP, the FB being the preferred engine since it has the 1800 hour TBO and the cylinders do not crack as easy as the ones in the -F model engine did. Is that true? I thought the F and FB used the same cylinders. It's the "F" *case* (thinwall) that is prone to cracking. [IMHO, *ALL* TCM cylinders are prone to cracking, and anything else that poor quality control can cause. {:(] jmk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
Fwd: [BD4] Source of HIGH CHTs on O-320 and O-360 FOUND! | Bruce A. Frank | Home Built | 1 | July 4th 04 07:28 PM |
GWB and the Air Guard | JD | Military Aviation | 77 | March 17th 04 10:52 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
High Altitude operations (Turbo charge???) | Andre | Home Built | 68 | July 11th 03 11:59 PM |