High time or missing logs?

[[email protected]]

Hey folks,

I'm trying to decide which is preferable, a relatively low time plane
with missing logs or a higher time of the same model with all logs.

The first is a 65-year old plane with 1800 ttaf and 346 tsmoh. It's
missing the airframe logs from 1986 and older.

The other has about 3000 ttaf and about 950 on a 25 year old overhaul.
All logs present.

Both planes have Continental 65s and are the same price.

All input appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
>
> The first is a 65-year old plane with 1800 ttaf and 346 tsmoh. It's
> missing the airframe logs from 1986 and older.

When was the overhaul.
>
> The other has about 3000 ttaf and about 950 on a 25 year old overhaul.
> All logs present.
>
The plane is past TBO. 12 years or whatever number of hours.

> Both planes have Continental 65s and are the same price.
>
Both of them seem to have spent some extended idle time. 1800
TT for 65 years is a hardly flown pane. 950 in 25 years also
means it probably sat.

The 346 smoh is a slight frontrunner, but you have to evaluate
the total condition on these older, infrequently flown planes.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

It is impossible to tell from the information you give, and even if you did,
I'd want to SEE the airplane. Both airplanes probably have "cores" for
engines. The one with the 25 year overhaul for sure.

Look at the guy's car....................You can just about tell EVERYTHING
about his airplane from the condition of his car.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

PS: I practice what I preach. I bought my 185 virtually sight unseen. You
need to move FAST on a good airplane/deal or else someone else will snatch
it up from under your eyes. Good airplanes/deals don't last!




> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm trying to decide which is preferable, a relatively low time plane
> with missing logs or a higher time of the same model with all logs.
>
> The first is a 65-year old plane with 1800 ttaf and 346 tsmoh. It's
> missing the airframe logs from 1986 and older.
>
> The other has about 3000 ttaf and about 950 on a 25 year old overhaul.
> All logs present.
>
> Both planes have Continental 65s and are the same price.
>
> All input appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Mike
>

[Stache]

Having missing log (records) that are 10 or more years ago really
isn't a problem. Many of the records can be found such as
alterations and type of equipment currently installed. Having a good
annual inspecting will base line the aircraft. I explain this in a
book I wrote. If you can account for the AD's that is one problem
solved if not then they have to be re-accomplished and on the airframe
that shouldn't be to difficult. What most important is current
records say the past 5 to 10 years.

With a little research some of your airframe records can be found AC
43.9 covers this quite well. If you need assistance you can contact me
through my web site: http://stacheair.com. I can search the aircraft
history for accident or incidents this will fill in some of the missing
stuff.

Stache

[Robert M. Gary]

wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm trying to decide which is preferable, a relatively low time plane
> with missing logs or a higher time of the same model with all logs.
>
> The first is a 65-year old plane with 1800 ttaf and 346 tsmoh. It's
> missing the airframe logs from 1986 and older.

In some older planes, missing logs seem to be the norm vs. the
exeption. I've yet to find an Aeronca that has complete logs to the
1940'.s However, if the engine log is complete to the last overhaul and
all the ADs are signed off it doesn't seem to hurt the plane in the
market (as long as you have at least 20+ years back).

[Robert M. Gary]

That's an excellent point. I got a great deal on a T-craft because the
owner said the airworthiness certificate was missing and because of
some mix up wasn't available at the FSDO (there was some N number mix
up). I ordered the CD from the FAA and the 100% valid airworthiness
cert was right there, correct N number and all.

-Robert

Stache wrote:
> Having missing log (records) that are 10 or more years ago really
> isn't a problem. Many of the records can be found such as
> alterations and type of equipment currently installed. Having a good
> annual inspecting will base line the aircraft. I explain this in a

[Denny]

Local fella on the field (Michigan) bought a drug seizure Aztec from
Texas with no logs and no information at all... The API mechanic went
through the airframe and verified the AD's...
Because the engines were totally unknown, they were torn down,
inspected, magnafluxed, etc., and then a field overhaul performed and
yellow tagged...
New logs were started with estimated total airframe and engine times
from a shop in Mexico that had worked on the plane five years before...
The FSDO inspector had inspected the work a couple of times during the
process and he formally signed off on the estimated times in the logs
as being acceptable and the FAA issued a certificate of
airworthiness... The plane flies on to this day, and is currently
hauling bank checks 5 nights a week across the North Sea in Europe...
All of this cost money, of course...

denny

[Roy N5804F[_1_]]

Reading through the thread, I am not understanding something.
If the logs are missing before 1986 how can the TT & TSOH be verified ?
I thought anyone can start a new set of logs. Maybe write in fictitious TT
and SMOH figures.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I would not give any credence at all to the TT &
SMOH that are declared on this 65 year old bird without complete logs ?


--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm trying to decide which is preferable, a relatively low time plane
> with missing logs or a higher time of the same model with all logs.
>
> The first is a 65-year old plane with 1800 ttaf and 346 tsmoh. It's
> missing the airframe logs from 1986 and older.
>
> The other has about 3000 ttaf and about 950 on a 25 year old overhaul.
> All logs present.
>
> Both planes have Continental 65s and are the same price.
>
> All input appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Mike
>

[Stache]

Roy N5804F wrote:
> Reading through the thread, I am not understanding something.
> If the logs are missing before 1986 how can the TT & TSOH be verified ?
> I thought anyone can start a new set of logs. Maybe write in fictitious TT
> and SMOH figures.
> Perhaps I am wrong, but I would not give any credence at all to the TT &
> SMOH that are declared on this 65 year old bird without complete logs


Occasionally, the records for an aircraft are lost or destroyed. In
order to re-construct them, it is necessary to establish the total
time-in-service of the airframe. This can be done by reference to
other records that reflect the time-in-service; research of records
maintained by repair facilities; and reference to records maintained by
individual mechanics, etc. When these things have been done and the
record is still incomplete, the owner/operator may make a notarized
statement in the new record describing the loss and establishing the
time-in-service based on the research and the best estimate of
time-in-service.
a. The current status of applicable AD's may present a more formidable
problem. This may require a detailed inspection by maintenance
personnel to establish that the applicable AD's have been complied
with. It can readily be seen that this could entail considerable time,
expense, and in some instances, might require recompliance wìth the
AD.
b. Other items required by section 91.417(a)(2), such as the current
status of life-limited parts, time since last overhaul, current
inspection status, and current list of major alterations, may present
difficult problems. Some items may be easier to reestablish than
others, but all are problems. Losing maintenance records can be
troublesome, costly, and time consuming. Safekeeping of the records is
an integral part of a good record keeping system.

Some circumstances impact the owner's or operator's ability to comply
with section 91.417(a)(2)(i). For example, in the case of rebuilt
engines, the owner or operator would not have a way of knowing the
total time-in-service, since section 91.421 permits the maintenance
record to be discontinued and the engine time to be started at zero.
In this case, the maintenance record and time-in-service, subsequent to
the rebuild, comprise a satisfactory record.

Reference AC 43-9C

Stache

[CriticalMass]

wrote:
> The first is a 65-year old plane

I'm totally floored that everyone just accepts and replies, with the
understanding that the issue is with a **65 year old plane**.

When do the flags start going up the pole? When the plane is 100 years
old - 150 years old....when?

[CriticalMass]

wrote:
> The first is a 65-year old plane

When is a plane too old - 65 years...100 years...150 years...how old?

[Dave Stadt]

"CriticalMass" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> The first is a 65-year old plane
>
> When is a plane too old - 65 years...100 years...150 years...how old?

Never, the older the better.

[Doug[_1_]]

I agree. That old stuff spooks me. People talk about Cessna 172's as
being new if they are built in the late 70's. YIKES. Folks, NEW is less
than 5 years old or so...

[Frank Stutzman]

CriticalMass > wrote:
> wrote:
>> The first is a 65-year old plane
>
> When is a plane too old - 65 years...100 years...150 years...how old?

Dunno. When is a rock too old?

The fact of the matter is that any old plane thats been kept
airworthy for its life has pretty much had everything replaced at
one time or another.

Case in point. My Bonanza is 57 years old this year. I would have
to guestimate that only about 15% of it is "factory orginal". What
hasn't been replaced really doesn't need replacing as long as its
kept corrosion free.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Mike Spera]

>> The first is a 65-year old plane
>
>
> I'm totally floored that everyone just accepts and replies, with the
> understanding that the issue is with a **65 year old plane**.
>
> When do the flags start going up the pole? When the plane is 100 years
> old - 150 years old....when?

The fleet average is over 30 years old now. Most owners of high time old
airframes will staunchly defend their mounts. They make statements like
"if it was maintained" and "by now everything has been replaced". When I
recall all the birds I have seen, the reality out there is quite
different. Most have NOT been "well maintained". Most owners are
operating on a shoestring and wait for something to fall off before they
fix it. When they arrive at the day when they absolutely have to do
something, they usually choose the cheapest method to band aid the thing
together. Over the years, all these patch together parts start failing
again and the list just keeps growing.

Very few owners replace with OEM or better quality. Fewer still upgrade
to the most modern version. This is especially true with avionics.

So, IF these birds were being taken care of, I would have no fear in a
high time, older airframe. But from everything I have seen, my money
will go to a 15-20 year old bird with 2500 hours or less. There are
exceptions but the vast majority of airplanes out there are flying junk.
Many who interact here tend towards the "upkeep and upgrade" method.

Good Luck,
Mike

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

I tend to believe there are two types of owners of older airframes:
those that can't afford newer as described by Mike, and those that have
a nostalgic tendency. Personally, when I owned my Funk B I kept it in
top shape and tripled my money on it when I finally sold. Yes, it was
only 3 months younger than me but that was part of the mystique.

To paint the owners of older airframes as condoning sloppy or cut-rate
maintenance is to use way too wide a brush. To me it seems there are a
greater percentage of 30 year old derelicts than there are of 60 year
old derelicts. (Notice I said percentage, not number).



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Spera ]
> Posted At: Saturday, July 15, 2006 11:17
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: High time or missing logs?
> Subject: Re: High time or missing logs?
>
>
.... clipped...
>
> The fleet average is over 30 years old now. Most owners of high time
old
> airframes will staunchly defend their mounts. They make statements
like
> "if it was maintained" and "by now everything has been replaced". When
I
> recall all the birds I have seen, the reality out there is quite
> different. Most have NOT been "well maintained". Most owners are
> operating on a shoestring and wait for something to fall off before
they
> fix it. When they arrive at the day when they absolutely have to do
> something, they usually choose the cheapest method to band aid the
thing
> together. Over the years, all these patch together parts start failing
> again and the list just keeps growing.
>
> Very few owners replace with OEM or better quality. Fewer still
upgrade
> to the most modern version. This is especially true with avionics.
>
> So, IF these birds were being taken care of, I would have no fear in a
> high time, older airframe. But from everything I have seen, my money
> will go to a 15-20 year old bird with 2500 hours or less. There are
> exceptions but the vast majority of airplanes out there are flying
junk.
> Many who interact here tend towards the "upkeep and upgrade" method.
>
> Good Luck,
> Mike

[Denny]

Well, everyone has their belief systems... 49 year old piece of junk,
Fat Albert, did the three states circuit again... Beauty is in the eye
of the beholder...

I worked the office until 1Pm so we didn't lift off until 2PM on
Saturday and it was hellaciously hot... Density altitude at my airport
was 2400 feet above the actual 600 foot elevation... At 5500 msl it was
still 78 degrees and the sun was like a blast furnace coming through
the plexi into our faces... We wound up staying at our daughter's
cottage on Lake Erie for the night (my wife and daughter snookered me
on that one - I was planning a night run across the lake, it would have
been beautiful)... We left for Michigan early Sunday morning... A
glorious ride across the lake with the sun just up in the east, early
bird boats motoring on a piece of blue-green glass leaving a visible
wake behind them clear back to the shore 10 to 20 miles away, lots of
dawn patrol chatter on unicom which was opposed to Saturday afternoon
when unicom was silent in the oppressive heat...... Interestingly, I
noticed that the US boaters pay no attention to ATC and the Canadian
border.... They just go where the fish are...

BTW, the B-17 Liberty Bell was at Port Clinton giving tours and hopping
rides... There was also an Avenger there doing demo flights... They
drew a good crowd from the general public... The weekend of the 4th a
Ford Tri-Motor was there also hopping rides... PCW seems to be good for
GA...

denny