High time airframe question

Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
AFTT.

In article
,
xyzzy wrote:

Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
AFTT.

What does Piper have to say about the life-limits of their airframes?
I know I have seen numbers somewhere, but I do not know where to find
them.

xyzzy wrote:
Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
AFTT.

There is no life limit on the Warrior airframe. The only Piper I know of
that has a limit is the wing/spar structure on the Tomahawk (around 11K hrs.,
IIRC).

I'd take an old airframe that has been well maintained over a low time
airframe that's spent it's life sitting parked. Last year I flew a rental
Warrior with more than 14,000 hrs. on the airframe. It was in better shape
than most of the personally owned low time aircraft on the field.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200807/1

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
AFTT.

I've never heard of an insurance company caring, but that's not to say
there's not some out there as they all seem to march to the beat of their
own drummer.

Many people seem to care about aircraft total time, so obviously it does
affect resale to some extent and right or wrong that should be a
consideration because it affects what the aircraft is worth on the open
market. I would personally be much more concerned about an aircraft that's
sat around in some field with grass growing around it for years on end.
High time generally means the aircraft has been regularly flown, well
maintained, and upgraded for it's entire life. My airplane has almost
9,000 hrs and I'm not at all worried about it. I know a guy that owns a 172
with over 17,000 hrs on it and it's still going strong.

On Jul 17, 3:45*pm, "Mike" wrote:

Many people seem to care about aircraft total time, so obviously it does
affect resale to some extent and right or wrong that should be a
consideration because it affects what the aircraft is worth on the open
market. *I would personally be much more concerned about an aircraft that's
sat around in some field with grass growing around it for years on end.
High time generally means the aircraft has been regularly flown, well
maintained, and *upgraded for it's entire life. *My airplane has almost
9,000 hrs and I'm not at all worried about it. *I know a guy that owns a 172
with over 17,000 hrs on it and it's still going strong.

I think that's a concern in the industry though. As our fleet ages we
may find that planes will start falling from the sky at some point.
Boeing puts limits on how many cycles a plane can have. It would make
sense too that a spar can only flex so many times, wouldn't it (I'm
not metal expert though)?

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jul 17, 3:45 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Many people seem to care about aircraft total time, so obviously it does
affect resale to some extent and right or wrong that should be a
consideration because it affects what the aircraft is worth on the open
market. I would personally be much more concerned about an aircraft that's
sat around in some field with grass growing around it for years on end.
High time generally means the aircraft has been regularly flown, well
maintained, and upgraded for it's entire life. My airplane has almost
9,000 hrs and I'm not at all worried about it. I know a guy that owns a 172
with over 17,000 hrs on it and it's still going strong.

I think that's a concern in the industry though. As our fleet ages we
may find that planes will start falling from the sky at some point.
Boeing puts limits on how many cycles a plane can have. It would make
sense too that a spar can only flex so many times, wouldn't it (I'm
not metal expert though)?

I think the greater issue with airliners is
the pressurization/depressurization cycles,
not the landings.

On Jul 17, 9:59*pm, Jim Stewart wrote:

I think the greater issue with airliners is
the pressurization/depressurization cycles,
not the landings.-

That's just another way of saying metal flexing too much. We have flex
in our metal parts too. That's the point.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jul 17, 3:45 pm, "Mike" wrote:

Many people seem to care about aircraft total time, so obviously it does
affect resale to some extent and right or wrong that should be a
consideration because it affects what the aircraft is worth on the open
market. I would personally be much more concerned about an aircraft
that's
sat around in some field with grass growing around it for years on end.
High time generally means the aircraft has been regularly flown, well
maintained, and upgraded for it's entire life. My airplane has almost
9,000 hrs and I'm not at all worried about it. I know a guy that owns a
172
with over 17,000 hrs on it and it's still going strong.

I think that's a concern in the industry though. As our fleet ages we
may find that planes will start falling from the sky at some point.
Boeing puts limits on how many cycles a plane can have. It would make
sense too that a spar can only flex so many times, wouldn't it (I'm
not metal expert though)?

Perhaps there is such a point, but I don't believe that point is within the
realistic life of a small GA aircraft. The limit Boeing puts on aircraft
will be in the neighborhood of 40,000 hours or more. Even at that you have
a lot of 727s and 747s still flying at well over 70,000 hours. You're also
talking about aircraft that endure extremes of pressure and temperature on
every flight and routinely penetrate severe weather that no pilot of a small
GA aircraft would purposely go anywhere near. Corrosion is a much greater
threat to GA aircraft than metal fatigue.

9,000 hrs and I'm not at all worried about it. I know a guy that owns a
172 with over 17,000 hrs on it and it's still going strong.

That's still less than two years in the air. Unless that time was spent
entirely doing touch & goes (which, I suppose, is possible in a 172?),
shouldn't be any problem.

Good maintenance is the key.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article
,
xyzzy wrote:

Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection,
are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability,
etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000
AFTT.

It is the KIND of time in those 11000 hours that matters. If the plane
has spent most of its time in the air, with only a couple of pilots,
rather than as a student pilot hack, it is a far more attractive
proposition.

There can be far more abused airplanes, with much lower time on them,
out there.

I recall an auction of a C185 that had high time and had spent life in
Alaska as a seaplane. I wouldn't have touched that one with a 10-foot
pole!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.