High time or missing logs?

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

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.

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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?