Lost Paperwork?

[Marty]

I just looked at an ad in Trade a plane.
It's a Cessna Cardinal, 1968 (fairly cheap)with no paperwork which means to
me, no logs.
Besides the obvious, what kind of hassles is there to lost logs?
If I were to purchase this plane, it would be with the intention of doing a
ground-up resto.after a structural blessing by my A&P.
Say I got it, put in new avionics, new engine, prop overhauled, ADs complied
with, fresh paint and interior. What else am I faced with? Any insurance
hassles?
I really like the Cardinals and see this as a possible opportunity since
Cessna won't make any more of them.

Marty

[Newps]

If you gotta have a Cardinal avoid the 68's. If it has the 150 hp engine it
is a real dog.



"Marty" > wrote in message
...
> I just looked at an ad in Trade a plane.
> It's a Cessna Cardinal, 1968 (fairly cheap)with no paperwork which means
to
> me, no logs.
> Besides the obvious, what kind of hassles is there to lost logs?
> If I were to purchase this plane, it would be with the intention of doing
a
> ground-up resto.after a structural blessing by my A&P.
> Say I got it, put in new avionics, new engine, prop overhauled, ADs
complied
> with, fresh paint and interior. What else am I faced with? Any insurance
> hassles?
> I really like the Cardinals and see this as a possible opportunity since
> Cessna won't make any more of them.
>
> Marty
>
>
>

[Stephen N Mills]

If you want REAL information about Cardinals go to the type-group web
site:

www.cardinalflyers.com

They have more facts and data on Cardinals than any other source in
the world. I have owned a Cardinal RG '75 for over a year now, and
they have already saved me several thousand dollars.
They have an excellent pre-buy guide,

- Steve


On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:16:55 -0600, "Newps" >
wrote:

>If you gotta have a Cardinal avoid the 68's. If it has the 150 hp engine it
>is a real dog.
>
>
>
>"Marty" > wrote in message
...
>> I just looked at an ad in Trade a plane.
>> It's a Cessna Cardinal, 1968 (fairly cheap)with no paperwork which means
>to
>> me, no logs.
>> Besides the obvious, what kind of hassles is there to lost logs?
>> If I were to purchase this plane, it would be with the intention of doing
>a
>> ground-up resto.after a structural blessing by my A&P.
>> Say I got it, put in new avionics, new engine, prop overhauled, ADs
>complied
>> with, fresh paint and interior. What else am I faced with? Any insurance
>> hassles?
>> I really like the Cardinals and see this as a possible opportunity since
>> Cessna won't make any more of them.
>>
>> Marty
>>
>>
>>
>

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:47:06 -0500, "Marty" >
wrote:

>I just looked at an ad in Trade a plane.
>It's a Cessna Cardinal, 1968 (fairly cheap)with no paperwork which means to
>me, no logs.
>Besides the obvious, what kind of hassles is there to lost logs?
>If I were to purchase this plane, it would be with the intention of doing a
>ground-up resto.after a structural blessing by my A&P.
>Say I got it, put in new avionics, new engine, prop overhauled, ADs complied
>with, fresh paint and interior. What else am I faced with? Any insurance
>hassles?
>I really like the Cardinals and see this as a possible opportunity since
>Cessna won't make any more of them.

If you want a cheap plane to fly for many years - a no log plane might
be an ok deal. Just make sure to have an A&P do a very thorough
prebuy (might as well make it an annual inspectinon).

However, the real problem with no log planes presents itself when you
go to sell the plane. Potential buyers avoid 'no log' planes like the
plague. It may take several months to sell, and then you will be very
lucky to get a good price. If you buy a 'no log' plane and upgrade it
as you suggest, you will be lucky to get 40 cents on the dollar.

-Nathan

[Marty]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> If you gotta have a Cardinal avoid the 68's. If it has the 150 hp engine
it
> is a real dog.
>
>

Hard to believe they put anything less than 180hp in them isn't it?
This one has 180hp with constant speed prop and I'd actually like more than
that.

[Marty]

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:47:06 -0500, "Marty" >
> wrote:
> If you want a cheap plane to fly for many years - a no log plane might
> be an ok deal. Just make sure to have an A&P do a very thorough
> prebuy (might as well make it an annual inspectinon).

This is a possibility.

> However, the real problem with no log planes presents itself when you
> go to sell the plane. Potential buyers avoid 'no log' planes like the
> plague. It may take several months to sell, and then you will be very
> lucky to get a good price. If you buy a 'no log' plane and upgrade it
> as you suggest, you will be lucky to get 40 cents on the dollar.
>
> -Nathan

Right, and Cardinals aren't commanding big prices as it is.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Marty" > wrote in message >...
> I just looked at an ad in Trade a plane.
> It's a Cessna Cardinal, 1968 (fairly cheap)with no paperwork which means to
> me, no logs.
> Besides the obvious, what kind of hassles is there to lost logs?
> If I were to purchase this plane, it would be with the intention of doing a
> ground-up resto.after a structural blessing by my A&P.
> Say I got it, put in new avionics, new engine, prop overhauled, ADs complied
> with, fresh paint and interior. What else am I faced with? Any insurance
> hassles?
> I really like the Cardinals and see this as a possible opportunity since
> Cessna won't make any more of them.

I think the airframe can be ok with nothing more than an expensive
search of all ADs since the begining of time, ensure they are all
done, and ensure you have a current annual, transponder, ELT, etc sign
off.

The only thing the insurance co's really are concerned about is the
hours on the engine. If you get an overhaul they'll be happy (they
really only care about SMOH time).

Be aware that there may be some pretty expensive ADs that haven't been
done. Do you know if the actual maintenance was done well (did the
widow just throw out the logs or was the last owner a rebel?).

I wouldn't worry about resale value, since that should already be
taken into account when you pay for the plane. If it reduces the value
of the plane, you'll resell it for less, but you should also pay less.
That should work out as long as you don't over pay with this in mind.

BTW: In my opinion, if you have to fly a Cessna, the fix gear Cardinal
is not a bad one to have. :) They do run better with a 200hp
conversion though. I flew a 150hp one for a while and I felt like I
was hitting cows in the head on take off. Some have put turbo charged
engines in them and use them as high altitude travel planes.
-Robert

-Robert

[Teacherjh]

>>
I wouldn't worry about resale value, since that should already be
taken into account when you pay for the plane.
<<

but it won't be taken into account for all the stuff you put into it.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[One's Too Many]

"Marty" > wrote in message >...
> I just looked at an ad in Trade a plane.
> It's a Cessna Cardinal, 1968 (fairly cheap)with no paperwork which means to
> me, no logs.

We looked at an early 150hp Cardinal before buying our 172L. Test-flew
it in the sweltering humidity and heat of Houston in August and was so
happy it finally got off the ground and wallowed its way into the air.
It was an OK bird I guess, nice and roomy but now I know firsthand why
everyone says they need a 180hp engine. They really do.

With no logbooks however, IMHO it's only worth what Wentworth would
buy it for as salvage.

[Robert M. Gary]

(Teacherjh) wrote in message >...
> >>
> I wouldn't worry about resale value, since that should already be
> taken into account when you pay for the plane.
> <<
>
> but it won't be taken into account for all the stuff you put into it.

But we're just talking about the price impact of not having all the
paper work. Any thing else you put into it may not recover cost (GPS,
avionics, etc)

-Robert

[Dave Stadt]

"Marty" > wrote in message
...
> I just looked at an ad in Trade a plane.
> It's a Cessna Cardinal, 1968 (fairly cheap)with no paperwork which means
to
> me, no logs.
> Besides the obvious, what kind of hassles is there to lost logs?
> If I were to purchase this plane, it would be with the intention of doing
a
> ground-up resto.after a structural blessing by my A&P.
> Say I got it, put in new avionics, new engine, prop overhauled, ADs
complied
> with, fresh paint and interior. What else am I faced with? Any insurance
> hassles?
> I really like the Cardinals and see this as a possible opportunity since
> Cessna won't make any more of them.
>
> Marty


Shouldn't be too hard to find a dataplate that comes with complete
paperwork. It's done all the time with vintage and antiques.

[NW_PILOT]

If I had the cash I'd buy it asap for a project and nothing more,


"Marty" > wrote in message
...
> I just looked at an ad in Trade a plane.
> It's a Cessna Cardinal, 1968 (fairly cheap)with no paperwork which means
to
> me, no logs.
> Besides the obvious, what kind of hassles is there to lost logs?
> If I were to purchase this plane, it would be with the intention of doing
a
> ground-up resto.after a structural blessing by my A&P.
> Say I got it, put in new avionics, new engine, prop overhauled, ADs
complied
> with, fresh paint and interior. What else am I faced with? Any insurance
> hassles?
> I really like the Cardinals and see this as a possible opportunity since
> Cessna won't make any more of them.
>
> Marty
>
>
>

[Newps]

"Marty" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you gotta have a Cardinal avoid the 68's. If it has the 150 hp
engine
> it
> > is a real dog.
> >
> >
>
> Hard to believe they put anything less than 180hp in them isn't it?
> This one has 180hp with constant speed prop and I'd actually like more
than
> that.
>
I had a 69 with the 180 and fixed prop. The 182 I have now makes a Cardinal
look like the mistake it was.

[Newps]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
>
> Shouldn't be too hard to find a dataplate that comes with complete
> paperwork. It's done all the time with vintage and antiques.

That's exactly how my Cardinal was made. We took two damaged Cardinals,
completely rebuilt them and put the data plate from the smashed plane on the
new one because it only had 1200 TT.

[John Galban]

(Robert M. Gary) wrote in message >...
>
> The only thing the insurance co's really are concerned about is the
> hours on the engine. If you get an overhaul they'll be happy (they
> really only care about SMOH time).
>
As far as I know, there's only one underwriter that even asks about
engine hours. They only started doing it a couple of years ago and
other companies have not followed suit (unfortunately, I can't recall
the name of the company). I just got quotes from 4 companies and not
one asked me about time SMOH. The standard policies from most of the
underwriters only require that the plane is legally airworthy. That
includes current annuals and ADs.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Dave Stadt]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> (Robert M. Gary) wrote in message
>...
> >
> > The only thing the insurance co's really are concerned about is the
> > hours on the engine. If you get an overhaul they'll be happy (they
> > really only care about SMOH time).
> >
> As far as I know, there's only one underwriter that even asks about
> engine hours. They only started doing it a couple of years ago and
> other companies have not followed suit (unfortunately, I can't recall
> the name of the company). I just got quotes from 4 companies and not
> one asked me about time SMOH. The standard policies from most of the
> underwriters only require that the plane is legally airworthy. That
> includes current annuals and ADs.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

I have never been asked about SMOH either. BTW just got my renewal which
was about 10% lower than last year.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> BTW just got my renewal which
> was about 10% lower than last year.

The stock market's picked up quite a bit. That's reflected in your rate.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Robert M. Gary]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message >...
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Robert M. Gary) wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > > The only thing the insurance co's really are concerned about is the
> > > hours on the engine. If you get an overhaul they'll be happy (they
> > > really only care about SMOH time).
> > >
> > As far as I know, there's only one underwriter that even asks about
> > engine hours. They only started doing it a couple of years ago and
> > other companies have not followed suit (unfortunately, I can't recall
> > the name of the company). I just got quotes from 4 companies and not
> > one asked me about time SMOH. The standard policies from most of the
> > underwriters only require that the plane is legally airworthy. That
> > includes current annuals and ADs.
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> I have never been asked about SMOH either. BTW just got my renewal which
> was about 10% lower than last year.

I get asked at each renewal.

[Marty]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Marty" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > If you gotta have a Cardinal avoid the 68's. If it has the 150 hp
> engine
> > it
> > > is a real dog.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hard to believe they put anything less than 180hp in them isn't it?
> > This one has 180hp with constant speed prop and I'd actually like more
> than
> > that.
> >
> I had a 69 with the 180 and fixed prop. The 182 I have now makes a
Cardinal
> look like the mistake it was.
>
>
>

Why call it a mistake Newps?
It's only my opinion but I personally don't think Cessna made a better
looking piston single. To me, and again it's only my personal opinion, all
the other Cessna piston singles look all too much alike. That's not to say
it was a bad move,sales wise they have a selection of piston singles to fit
the majority.

If I want to lift a lot of weight, there is the T-206(my personal favorite
of the Cessna guppies). If I want to just fly the family around there is the
172 or 182 but geeze they are SLOW.

The Cardinal has a high performance airfoil and needs a powerplant to match.
150hp (or even 180hp) is an insult to this aircraft, no doubt.

To each his own but I think Cessna had a diamond in the rough and for
economic (profit) reasons pitched it.
A Card with 200hp+ and CS prop would fit my flying lifestyle to a tee. Other
than that I'll be looking for a Piper.

All I want to do is go (safely) from point A to point B, at the fastest,
most reasonable cost in a 4 place bird.

Marty

[Newps]

"Marty" > wrote in message
...
> >
>
> Why call it a mistake Newps?

Many, may reasons. Too low to the ground. I'm 6'1" and have to duck and
bend to get in. No good. Didn't like the seating position, reclined like a
foreign car. Headliner too low, hit the top of my headset constantly.

>
> If I want to lift a lot of weight, there is the T-206(my personal favorite
> of the Cessna guppies). If I want to just fly the family around there is
the
> 172 or 182 but geeze they are SLOW.

The Cardinal with the 180 hp engine is the same speed as the 172 with the
180 hp engine. Both are slower than a 182. I have no pants and big tires
on my 182 and am still faster than any 172/177. However that isn't even the
point. Takeoff performance is the point. The 182 blows them both away.
And if you want a 182 to go fast you can put on all the fairings and speed
mods and get about 150 kts TAS on the 230 HP. Much more if you go with 300
HP.


>
> The Cardinal has a high performance airfoil

The 68 and 69 models did, later than that and they had the same basic wing
as a 172.





> To each his own but I think Cessna had a diamond in the rough and for
> economic (profit) reasons pitched it.

If Cessna hadn't screwed up and sold it with the 150 hp engine and that
****ty tail in 68 the 172 might be as rare as the 175 now. After they
started selling them however the die was cast and it was too late to
recover.



> A Card with 200hp+ and CS prop would fit my flying lifestyle to a tee.
Other
> than that I'll be looking for a Piper.


My preference is for an off road airplane. The Cardinal has much weaker
gear than the 182, especially that goofy nosewheel. You won't find low wing
Pipers in the mountains and landing on rough strips. I am trying to decide
between putting a 275 HP engine and extended baggage in my plane or
upgrading to a P206.




>
> All I want to do is go (safely) from point A to point B, at the fastest,
> most reasonable cost in a 4 place bird.

Then you want a early to mid 60's 35 Bonanza. Buddy of mine has one, very
nice and very fast. He gets about 160 kts on approx 11 gph with the IO-470.

[Marty]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Marty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> >
> > Why call it a mistake Newps?
>
> Many, may reasons. Too low to the ground. I'm 6'1" and have to duck and
> bend to get in. No good. Didn't like the seating position, reclined like
a
> foreign car. Headliner too low, hit the top of my headset constantly.
>

Gotta have clothes that fit

> > If I want to lift a lot of weight, there is the T-206(my personal
favorite
> > of the Cessna guppies). If I want to just fly the family around there is
> the
> > 172 or 182 but geeze they are SLOW.
>
> The Cardinal with the 180 hp engine is the same speed as the 172 with the
> 180 hp engine. Both are slower than a 182. I have no pants and big tires
> on my 182 and am still faster than any 172/177. However that isn't even
the
> point. Takeoff performance is the point. The 182 blows them both away.
> And if you want a 182 to go fast you can put on all the fairings and speed
> mods and get about 150 kts TAS on the 230 HP. Much more if you go with
300
> HP.
>

Thanks, thats why I asked. I flew a 177RG and I only remembered that you
get the approach speed under control early, it didn't want to slow down,
it's been awhile.

> >
> > The Cardinal has a high performance airfoil
>
> The 68 and 69 models did, later than that and they had the same basic wing
> as a 172.
>
>
>
>
>
> > To each his own but I think Cessna had a diamond in the rough and for
> > economic (profit) reasons pitched it.
>
> If Cessna hadn't screwed up and sold it with the 150 hp engine and that
> ****ty tail in 68 the 172 might be as rare as the 175 now. After they
> started selling them however the die was cast and it was too late to
> recover.
>
>
>
> > A Card with 200hp+ and CS prop would fit my flying lifestyle to a tee.
> Other
> > than that I'll be looking for a Piper.
>
>
> My preference is for an off road airplane. The Cardinal has much weaker
> gear than the 182, especially that goofy nosewheel. You won't find low
wing
> Pipers in the mountains and landing on rough strips. I am trying to
decide
> between putting a 275 HP engine and extended baggage in my plane or
> upgrading to a P206.
>

I'd vote for the 206, best one in the fleet. I have a bit of time in the 206
and find it is a great trade off in many respects. I just don't have the
$$$.
Matter of fact, I transitioned from the C150/2 to the 206 as a student, talk
about dangling the perverbial carrot! Hard to get back into the 150 after
that.

>
>
> >
> > All I want to do is go (safely) from point A to point B, at the fastest,
> > most reasonable cost in a 4 place bird.
>
> Then you want a early to mid 60's 35 Bonanza. Buddy of mine has one, very
> nice and very fast. He gets about 160 kts on approx 11 gph with the
IO-470.
>

I'll have to do more research, but I've shyed away from RGs because of
costs vs. benefits.

One thing I do know, fractional ownership on a Cherokee isn't working.

Thanks,
Marty