Prop strike effect on resale value?

[John Doe]

Got a general question for the group:

If a used plane is for sale on the market, what effect is a prior prop
strike going to have on it's resale value?

I haven't found anything on any of the valuation services like Vref that
talk about any kind of previous damage.

I know it's all in the eye of the beholder, but I'm wondering if there is
any presidence in devaluation based on previous damage history.

Thanks.

[Newps]

John Doe wrote:

> Got a general question for the group:
>
> If a used plane is for sale on the market, what effect is a prior prop
> strike going to have on it's resale value?

None if the engine was torn down and repaired as necessary. If not then
I wouldn't buy it except as a run out.


>
> I know it's all in the eye of the beholder, but I'm wondering if there is
> any presidence in devaluation based on previous damage history.

Previous damage history is airplane dependent. For example there's
practically no such thing as a Cub that hasn't been rolled up into a
ball and rebuilt. They are the most expensive Cubs out there. Same
goes for 182's. Everybody knows they are nose heavy and will land on
the nosewheel if you let it, causing a wrinkled firewall. That's damage
history but if it's fixed right there's no hit on value. I sold my 182
in August and there was no negotiating down for the third firewall my
plane had. Take a Cherokee on the other hand and back an elevator or
flap or aileron into a hangar and buyers will want a price break.

[Dave Butler]

John Doe wrote:
> Got a general question for the group:
>
> If a used plane is for sale on the market, what effect is a prior prop
> strike going to have on it's resale value?

It depends. How long ago? Was the prop overhauled? Replaced? Engine overhauled?
I don't think you'll find a cut-and-dried answer. It just comes down to what
else is available, at what price, and what the seller and buyer are willing to do.

> I haven't found anything on any of the valuation services like Vref that
> talk about any kind of previous damage.

For something like that, skip the freebie evaluation services. Pay ~$20 and get
a valuation from http://www.aeroprice.com

> I know it's all in the eye of the beholder, but I'm wondering if there is
> any presidence in devaluation based on previous damage history.

Whether there are any precedents?

[Robert M. Gary]

Seems like the value changes for 5 years. After that, no effect.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John Doe wrote:
>
>> Got a general question for the group:
>>
>> If a used plane is for sale on the market, what effect is a prior prop
>> strike going to have on it's resale value?
>
> None if the engine was torn down and repaired as necessary. If not then I
> wouldn't buy it except as a run out.
>
>
>>
>> I know it's all in the eye of the beholder, but I'm wondering if there is
>> any presidence in devaluation based on previous damage history.
>
> Previous damage history is airplane dependent. For example there's
> practically no such thing as a Cub that hasn't been rolled up into a ball
> and rebuilt. They are the most expensive Cubs out there. Same goes for
> 182's. Everybody knows they are nose heavy and will land on the nosewheel
> if you let it, causing a wrinkled firewall. That's damage history but if
> it's fixed right there's no hit on value. I sold my 182 in August and
> there was no negotiating down for the third firewall my plane had. Take a
> Cherokee on the other hand and back an elevator or flap or aileron into a
> hangar and buyers will want a price break.

http://tinyurl.com/b7zlc

The comparable aircraft are $40K or so higher.

[Doug]

I'd be concerned about what else was damaged. If there was a prop
strike, was there firewall damage. If so, was it repaired correctly.
Also, field rebuilds are a bit iffy. Repairs completed by Steve's
Aircraft. Who is Steve? Just what did he really do? How many hours
since the rebuild. Is all well?

If all is well and everything checks out (COMPRESSION check), oil burn,
filter clean, then yeah, ok.

Like the others say, after a bit of time, the devaluation goes away.

[Mike Spera]

As others have stated, you need to follow the engine manufacturer's
instructions following a prop strike or "sudden engine stoppage".
Usually this calls for inspection of the crank runout at a minimum. Some
call for engine teardown and magnafluxing parts. Still other engines
require replacement of certain parts like counterweights, camshaft
gears/bolts and other timing gears. I believe it depends on the make and
model of the engine, although others more familiar with this can chime in.

As the fleet ages, trainers especially can be expected to have SOME
damage SOMEWHERE in their history. Proper repairs (as evidenced through
documentation and inspection) and time appear to mitigate any devaluation.

My '74 Cherokee 140 did a ground loop in 1975 at 398 hours since new.
Tore down engine, inspected/replaced all the necessary stuff, replaced
the flaps, stabilitor, and an outer wing skin. Spars checked O.K. All
replacements and skin work flawless (as inspected by several wrenches
over the years). I now have 2600 hours on it.

Will I take one penny off for a 30 year old repair that is invisible,
one whole engine ago, and has withstood the test of time. Nope. And I
will have PLENTY of other buyers who will snap it up if someone insists
on a lower price for the damage history.

Now, a recent prop strike, that is another matter. The opportunity for
hidden or latent damage is quite a bit greater. Eliminate the engine
(via overhaul or replacement), overhaul/inspect the prop, and inspect
the rest of the bird and you probably won't care as much. Don't do those
things and I would personally consider the engine and prop as trash. I
would still insist on a careful inspection of the rest of the bird.

Others may disagree, but it is your money and risk.

Good Luck,
Mike

[Dave Butler]

> http://tinyurl.com/b7zlc
>
> The comparable aircraft are $40K or so higher.

Seems odd that for an aircraft in that price range, where the market is national
and not local, if the owner knew the plane would go on the market, he would
choose to have the repairs done by a shop without a national reputation. [Sorry
for that tortured sentence. Where's my editor?]

[Ron Natalie]

Mike Spera wrote:
> As others have stated, you need to follow the engine manufacturer's
> instructions following a prop strike or "sudden engine stoppage".
> Usually this calls for inspection of the crank runout at a minimum. Some
> call for engine teardown

"Some" includes both Lycoming and Continental.

[[email protected]]

A recent AD forces the owners of Lycomings to take any sort of
propstrike seriously, as the bolt that holds the gear on the back end
of the crank tends to fail or loosen during a sudden RPM drop. I wonder
if Lycoming will design the next engine with some different means of
retaining that gear...
Here's the AD text. Note Lycoming's definition of "prop
strike."

Dan

2004-10-14 Lycoming Engines (formerly Textron Lycoming): Amendment
39-13644. Docket No. 89-ANE-10-AD. Supersedes AD 91-14-22, Amendment
39-6916.

Effective Date

(a) This AD becomes effective June 25, 2004.

Affected ADs

(b) This AD supersedes AD 91-14-22.

Applicability

(c) This AD applies to

Lycoming Engines (formerly Textron Lycoming),
direct-drive reciprocating engines

(except O-145, O-320H, O-360E, LO-360E, LTO-360E, TO-360-E, O-435, and
TIO-541 series engines).

Unsafe Condition

(d) This AD results from a change to the definition of a propeller
strike or sudden stoppage. The actions specified in this AD are
intended to prevent loosening or failure of the crankshaft gear
retaining bolt, which may cause sudden engine failure.

Compliance

(e) Compliance with this AD is required as indicated before further
flight if the engine experiences a propeller strike after the effective
date of this AD, as defined in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD.

(f) Inspect, and if necessary repair, the crankshaft counter bored
recess, the alignment dowel, the bolt hole threads, and the crankshaft
gear for wear, galling, corrosion, and fretting in accordance with
steps 1 through 5 of Lycoming Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No.
475C, dated January 30, 2003.

(g) Remove the existing gear retaining bolt and lockplate from
service, and install a new bolt and lockplate, in accordance with steps
6 and 7 of Lycoming MSB No. 475C, dated January 30, 2003.

Prohibition of Retaining Bolt and Lockplate

(h) Do not install the gear retaining bolt and lockplate that were
removed in paragraph (g) of this AD, into any engine.

Definition of Propeller Strike

(i) For the purposes of this AD, a propeller strike is defined as
follows:
(1) Any incident, whether or not the engine is operating, that
requires repair to the propeller other than minor dressing of the
blades.
(2) Any incident during engine operation in which the propeller
impacts a solid object that causes a drop in revolutions per minute
(RPM) and also requires structural repair of the propeller (incidents
requiring only paint touch-up are not included). This is not restricted
to propeller strikes against the ground.
(3) A sudden RPM drop while impacting water, tall grass, or similar
yielding medium, where propeller damage is not normally incurred.

(j) The preceding definitions include situations where an aircraft
is stationary and the landing gear collapses causing one or more blades
to be substantially bent, or where a hanger door (or other object)
strikes the propeller blade. These cases should be handled as sudden
stoppages because of potentially severe side loading on the crankshaft
flange, front bearing, and seal.

[Mike Spera]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Mike Spera wrote:
>
>> As others have stated, you need to follow the engine manufacturer's
>> instructions following a prop strike or "sudden engine stoppage".
>> Usually this calls for inspection of the crank runout at a minimum.
>> Some call for engine teardown
>
>
> "Some" includes both Lycoming and Continental.

Ron,

I thought they both had that requirement somewhere, but I was not sure
whether it was binding (via some FAA reg.). Some other fellow posted the
AD for one engine make because of the crank gear. That seems to suggest
that the engine manufacturer's "recommendation" did not have regulatory
weight (or the AD would be unnecessary).

What's up?
Thanks,
Mike

[Roger]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:36:36 GMT, Mike Spera >
wrote:

>Ron Natalie wrote:
>> Mike Spera wrote:
>>
>>> As others have stated, you need to follow the engine manufacturer's
>>> instructions following a prop strike or "sudden engine stoppage".
>>> Usually this calls for inspection of the crank runout at a minimum.
>>> Some call for engine teardown
>>
>>
>> "Some" includes both Lycoming and Continental.
>
>Ron,
>
>I thought they both had that requirement somewhere, but I was not sure
>whether it was binding (via some FAA reg.). Some other fellow posted the
>AD for one engine make because of the crank gear. That seems to suggest
>that the engine manufacturer's "recommendation" did not have regulatory
>weight (or the AD would be unnecessary).

I don't have the papers here now, but it came out as an AD. *Any*
prop strike that takes more than a *minor* dressing requires an engine
teardown for both Lycoming and Continental and the engine does not
need to be developing power, or even running when the strike happens.

As to the original question: for most planes as long as the AD had
been complied with there should be no change in price. Now if you had
a nice new Bo, fresh off the assembly line which lost a quarter (or
more) of it's value when you brought it home, that would be an animal
of a different color.

My engine is near run out. If I had to do a tear down after a strike
it'd probably increase the value considerably. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>What's up?
>Thanks,
>Mike

[Ron Natalie]

Mike Spera wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>> Mike Spera wrote:
>>
>>> As others have stated, you need to follow the engine manufacturer's
>>> instructions following a prop strike or "sudden engine stoppage".
>>> Usually this calls for inspection of the crank runout at a minimum.
>>> Some call for engine teardown
>>
>>
>> "Some" includes both Lycoming and Continental.
>
> Ron,
>
> I thought they both had that requirement somewhere, but I was not sure
> whether it was binding (via some FAA reg.).

It's not an FAA requirement in most instances. It is however the
manufacturers recommendation in all cases (like TBO).