9,000 TTSN - pass?

[Potato Chip]

There is a 1980's C172P with 9000 hours TTSN on my local field. Most
things look good on this plane, except for its high Airframe time. It
is hardly a looker, but I am looking for a first-timer airplane for
building time and experience. It will also be kept online with the FBO
on leaseback, thus, it will average 400 hours/year. It has a 400hr SMOH
remanufactured lycoming engine. Asking price is in the low 60's.

I am just curious to hear other opinions on this airplane. I realize
the plane has lived a tough life as a trainer. in fact, it has 2 major
repairs after bad landings in its damage history, but the repairs were
done at reputable shops. it has been online with 2 reputable FBO's its
entire life.

My main issue is probably with the high airframe time. I hope to build
time and experience in this plane and then probably sell in 3 to 5
years. The engine will reach its overhaul time in probably another 4
years, about when I want to sell it. It will then have 10,600 hours at
that point, which will have exceeded the 5 figure TTSN number
threshold, which might have a psychological effect for resale.

I appreciate any thoughts you might share!
Jae

[Denny]

A 9000 hour airplane and they are going to keep it on leaseback with
you responsible for the repair costs out of your pocket....

My thought I want to share with you Jae is: R U N N N N N


denny

[Dave Butler]

Potato Chip wrote:

> My main issue is probably with the high airframe time. I hope to build
> time and experience in this plane and then probably sell in 3 to 5
> years. The engine will reach its overhaul time in probably another 4
> years, about when I want to sell it. It will then have 10,600 hours at
> that point, which will have exceeded the 5 figure TTSN number
> threshold, which might have a psychological effect for resale.
>
> I appreciate any thoughts you might share!

OK, here are a couple.

- All the issues you mention can be compensated by a suitable price adjustment.

- when you are ready to sell in 3-5 years, your buyers are going to be having
the same reservations that you are having now. That might be enough for me to
give it a pass right there. On the other hand, if I planned to keep it for a
while, it might be OK. IOW, this plane is more attractive to someone who plans
to keep it for a while.

- a leased airplane can be profitable, or can be a miserable experience. A lot
depends on the provisions of the lease contract. Who pays for what? What are you
promising to provide? What's your personal access to the plane? Who pays for
insurance? What is covered by the insurance? Who does the maintenance? Who
decides what maintenance is to be done? If maint is to be done by the lessee and
paid for by the lessor, what's the shop rate? Who can terminate the lease and
under what terms? Who does scheduling? Who decides which pilots are approved?
.... and on and on. Read carefully and remember everything is negotiable. Think
about your personal tolerance for having other people use and abuse your property.

[Potato Chip]

The FBO is actually fairly flexible. I got my private through them and
trust them and the people. I pretty much set my own rate, maintenance,
etc. The contract is month to month, so if things do not work out, i
can just cancel.

At least at this point, my least concern is with the FBO. Of course,
that may change in the future.

My main reason for the leaseback is to take the edge off of cost of
owning. This is an alternative to a partnership, which has its adv. and
disadv., but at this pont, i want to avoid a partnership.

Jae

[Potato Chip]

I understand that this particular plane has been for sale for a while -
maybe a year. Definitely gives me pause, but the price was much higher
then.

How many TTAF hours can someone reasonably expect from a trainer C172?
Looking around at the ads, I do not see many hours above 10k. I guess
if I knew 20,000 TTAF hours was okay, and this plane is just
middle-aged, then I might consider keeping it longer. However, the FBO
has told me that in 5 to 10 years, they expect to no longer carry
C172's, since they already have many more 172SP's, which are taking
over.

Since I got my private thru the same FBO, I trust them and the people
there a good bit. At this point, the leaseback is probably the least of
my worries. Of course, having a stranger flying my beater airplane is
probably better than having a stranger flying my nice new expensive
172SP!

Jae

[three-eight-hotel]

I have to agree with the other posters, especially the part about
"RUNNNN"... ;-)

9000 hours tells you one thing... Trainer! You can bet your bottom
dollar that plane has had a hard landing or two. That doesn't mean
there is anything wrong with this airplane and may in fact turn out to
be a great deal. However, there are a lot of low time airplanes out
there to be had at a decent price.

Be careful of an airplane with too low TTAF as well. Planes that
aren't flown semi-regularly could pose concerns also.

I went through the same struggle when I bought my 172! I really wanted
a specific high hour plane because it had the 180hp conversion. I went
with my gut and passed, and shortly fell across a nice 1976 172 with
less than 3000 TTAF and only one previous owner. Looking through the
logs and at some of the simple mods he had made, it was obvious he
really cared about the plane. However, that doesn't mean he hasn't
landed hard on occaision! ;-)

As Dave said, if you are having any trepidation about the plane right
now, so will any perspective buyers, after you have put even more time
on it. For some reason, 10,000 hours seems a whole lot bigger than
9.000 hours!?

Whatever you decide, make sure you get a good pre-purchase inspection
from a shop of "your" choosing, and hopefully someone you can trust!

Back to the lease-back point... I, quite honestly, can barely afford
to keep my plane with the fixed costs and incidentals. I would love to
put some newer avionics in it, but just can't seem to come up with the
funds. However, there is something quite comforting about knowing
every experience the plane goes through. I know it is going to be
exactly where it was when I left it, and I would know if there was
anything strange going on with the engine during its last flight. I
know if the last landing was a hard one or a greaser, and whether or
not I need to look closely at the plane because of a hard landing... I
think you would lose a little of that, when allowing your plane to be
used as a trainer...

I couldn't possibly know your financial situation, and can tell you
that there is actually no way to justify the cost of owning vs. renting
with as little as I fly (2 small kids and lots of activities, but I fly
when I can). It would make far more economic sense for me to rent,
than it does to own. However, after having made an emergency
dead-stick landing at an Air Force Base (shortly after 911), and after
having had the MP's brush the machine-guns over their shoulders as they
were leaning over to pat my instructor and I down, and after having the
owners of the plane down-play the severity of the incident, I decided
that sometimes economics should take a back seat!

There are no guarantees in life... My plane could encounter an issue
that could flat out bury me, both literally and figuratively, but I
feel much better knowing that I am in control of as much as I can be in
control of.

Sorry for the rant! My thoughts might not even be worth the virtual
paper they are typed on, but you did ask for sharing... ;-)

Best Regards and Best of Luck!
Todd

[Jim Burns]

A friend of mine has a saying about buying airplanes.

"Money will fix a lot of things on an airplane, however airframes, hours,
and abuse aren't one of them"

Kind of Yogi Berra-ish but what it means is that if you find an airplane you
want, and it's airframe is straight and solid, if it hasn't been abused or
wrecked, and if it's relatively low time for the $$, then everything else
that's wrong with it can be fixed with $$. The reverse is never possible no
matter how much $$ you have or want to spend on it.

Jim

[Jon Kraus]

Let me get this straight - a partnership is bad but a million ham-handed
training pilots is good. I guess I don't get your logic. Unless you are
thinking that you will be flying for free because of the leaseback. It
is still a ton of hours to have on a plane. I have to agree with Denny
on this one and RUN. YMMV

Good luck in whatever you choose.

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ

Potato Chip wrote:
>
> My main reason for the leaseback is to take the edge off of cost of
> owning. This is an alternative to a partnership, which has its adv. and
> disadv., but at this pont, i want to avoid a partnership.
>
> Jae
>

[J. Severyn]

"Potato Chip" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There is a 1980's C172P with 9000 hours TTSN on my local field. Most
> things look good on this plane, except for its high Airframe time. It
> is hardly a looker, but I am looking for a first-timer airplane for
> building time and experience. It will also be kept online with the FBO
> on leaseback, thus, it will average 400 hours/year. It has a 400hr SMOH
> remanufactured lycoming engine. Asking price is in the low 60's.
>
snip

> I appreciate any thoughts you might share!
> Jae
>

The high airframe time is not the main problem. Really.

The problem is you want to lease it back. That is where you get to pay the
maintenance for all the screw-ups of all the students and renters that will
fly your aircraft. I hope you have very deep pockets.

My advice......RUN

John Severyn

[Doodybutch]

Keep looking. You can do better than this.

Get the latest Trade-A-Plane and compare. I think you'll agree with me.

DB

[private]

"Potato Chip" > wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
> How many TTAF hours can someone reasonably expect from a trainer C172?
> Looking around at the ads, I do not see many hours above 10k. I guess
> if I knew 20,000 TTAF hours was okay, and this plane is just
> middle-aged, then I might consider keeping it longer.
snip

I have been warned? that there is? may be? will be? could be in future? a
major airframe inspection? rebuilding? AD? SL? required? by Cessna? FAA? at
12 or 13000 hrs. I suggest further research from knowledgeable source.

Happy landings

[S Herman]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:02:46 -0700, "J. Severyn"
> wrote:

>The high airframe time is not the main problem. Really.
>
>The problem is you want to lease it back. That is where you get to pay the
>maintenance for all the screw-ups of all the students and renters that will
>fly your aircraft. I hope you have very deep pockets.
>
>My advice......RUN
>
>John Severyn
>
In the flying club I belong to, all members are named insured and any
screw-ups beyond maintenance are covered by insurance. Owners are
liable for maintenance. My understanding is the owner gets a third of
the $72/HR, club overhead (insurance, tiedowns, expenses) gets a
third, and a third goes to fuel. If the plane flys 50 hours a month,
the owner would gross about $14,000 per year. Maintenance is
maintenance and the more hours you put on the plane the more often
maintenance has to be done, but the more hours put on the plane the
more income to the owner. We have (3) 172's (N & M's) that get flown
30-50 hours a month each, and their owners seem to be have been happy
for the past two years I've been a member. Two of those planes have
new engines in the last year. The cosmetics leave a lot to be desired,
and there are lots of minor problems like broken sun visors, ripped
carpet, broken knobs etc. Every club member (CFI's must be club
members) has the right (& responsibility) to ground any plane that is
un-airworthy. Obviously the owners want the plane on-line ASAP.
I do agree that some club members have a "renter" attitude, and don't
show pride of ownership in how they treat the aircraft. If you are
picky about cosmetics and details, lease-back is probably not for you.
If you treat it as a business, a way to defray your own costs of
flying, and put away the income for those maintenance headaches, it
can be run without "deep pockets".