Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware !

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
gy.com...

If you look hard enough 10 out of 10 airplanes are unairworthy. Nowhere
did
the buyer justify his claim the plane was not airworthy. His post sounded
to me like he seriously failed in his questioning before looking at the
plane then tried to blame the seller for his poor questioning. His
assumptions were based on what he thought he heard and wanted to hear not
on
what the seller said. Jim Weir hit the nail squarely on the head on this
one.

Yup...Caveat Emptor.

Likewise a car need not be roadworthy, or a building be inhabitable...and
it's the buyers responsibility to find out.

Jim Weir wrote in message . ..


Did you really LOOK at his post, Lennie? All the bitches about the airplane
were of the "I didn't like the way it looked." Not one single, "this measured
outside of the limits set by the xyz approved data sheet."

A pilot that will fly in a plane that has that many things "He doesn't
like" can be called only a goddam fool.

He didn't like the aileron ball joints but
had no idea why they were frozen. He didn't like the flap mechanisms but had no
data on which to base his complaints...yada...yada...yada...

Anyone with the amount of experience Bill has shouldn't need data
sheets to decide for himself what is acceptable and what is not. Data
sheet be damned, if it's not right, it's not right.

Berle was too stupid to ask the question.

Sorry, but after several years of correspondence with him, that
statement is totally wrong. When I bought my 1-26 I got more solid
information from him than I did from the rest of the soaring group.


A
-lot of other major work needed doing, not disclosed beforehand either.

What major work needed to be done? Quote me from Berle's post, will you?

Flap rails, aileron ball joint, seat rails, excessive play in yoke, I
doubt that any of these are going to be cheap to fix.

All I
saw were some rantings from a person who expected to see a show airplane for a
beater price.

He stated quite clearly that that was not what he expected, but did
expect an airworthy aircraft from the owners description and answers.
Any halfway sane buyer is going to ask about any major damage, and to
my mind, replacing a wing and the nosewheel mount qualify as major.
As does any structural damage. Was the engine torn down after it was
flipped? If it caused the replacement of the prop, chances are good
that damage was also done to the engine.

You got a nine inch South Bend for sale? I'm in the market.

You're only number 25 on the list. Had guys after that since the day
I brought it home, in pieces. Still have a lot of work to do to make
it run, and then if it's not to my specs, it won't be sold. As it is
now, a POS, when I'm done it might be a running POS and require all
the experience my 44 years in machining can give to do any acceptable
work. (I didn't say respectable, just acceptable.) Until it cuts
metal, I don't know what it is.

(Bill Berle) wrote in message . com...
I was looking for a super low priced 4 seat Cessna, and found an
advertisement for one on a very popular aviation classifieds site (a
fantastic website which is also based at the same airport as this
aircraft).... I asked what I thought were most
or all of the right questions on the phone and in e-mails.
...
Finally, you decided that I didn't deserve to know that the whole
airplane
was windstorm-flipped out of the tiedown RECENTLY and an entire wing
was
replaced, nosegear mounts, and other parts. Any potential buyer would
have
wanted to know that kind of thing before they traveled any distance or
burned up a very rare day off of work. Wings get replaced all the
time, and
if it's done right it's not a problem. But you OWE a potential buyer
that
information before they make arrangements to drive 250 miles round
trip.

I don't mean to pick here, but I am curious.

Did you specifically ask about accidents or major damage hx? If
so, I agree, an honest seller owes you an honest answer.

If not, do you feel the seller "owes" it to potential buyers to
spontaneously give negative info over the phone? If so, why?

Better luck with the next plane you look at,
Sydney

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:27:51 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
GC said:
Ya, I had this same thought. Price rarely is a measure of suitability
for a purpose. I agree with ya. In fact, suitability, quality, price,
and popularity often have little to do with each other.

Really? On what planet?

LOL. This one. Stay with the conversation, please. I'm laughing and
teasing a little because I'm trying to figure out if you're for real or
not. If you seriously believe what you're implying, you seriously have,
"sucker", written all over you. You seriously believe that top dollar
always buys best suitability for everything, every time? If so, I have a
$900 plastic tub liner and a $600 hammer to sale you. I'll be happy to
ship as soon as I receive your check, and it clears. I'm more than happy
to sale as many as you'd like to purchase. Seriously. This is no joke.

Is the phrase, "common sense", nothing more than a cliche to you?

Cheers,

Greg

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:47:04 -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:27:51 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
GC said:
Ya, I had this same thought. Price rarely is a measure of suitability
for a purpose. I agree with ya. In fact, suitability, quality, price,
and popularity often have little to do with each other.

Really? On what planet?

LOL. This one. Stay with the conversation, please. I'm laughing and
teasing a little because I'm trying to figure out if you're for real or
not. If you seriously believe what you're implying, you seriously have,
"sucker", written all over you. You seriously believe that top dollar
always buys best suitability for everything, every time? If so, I have a
$900 plastic tub liner and a $600 hammer to sale you. I'll be happy to
ship as soon as I receive your check, and it clears. I'm more than happy
to sale as many as you'd like to purchase. Seriously. This is no joke.

Is the phrase, "common sense", nothing more than a cliche to you?

Cheers,

Greg

Would you believe, "sell", even? Hate it when I do dumb stuff like that.

Oh well.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:47:04 -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:27:51 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
GC said:
Ya, I had this same thought. Price rarely is a measure of suitability
for a purpose. I agree with ya. In fact, suitability, quality,
price,
and popularity often have little to do with each other.

Really? On what planet?

LOL. This one. Stay with the conversation, please. I'm laughing and
teasing a little because I'm trying to figure out if you're for real or
not. If you seriously believe what you're implying, you seriously have,
"sucker", written all over you. You seriously believe that top dollar
always buys best suitability for everything, every time? If so, I have
a
$900 plastic tub liner and a $600 hammer to sale you.

Ever buy something custom made?

If I really need a specific tub liner, and your's is all I have, it might be
worth $900.

Do you know WHY the military had to pay $600 for hammers and why they could
not get them at Ace Hardware.

I'll be happy to
ship as soon as I receive your check, and it clears. I'm more than happy
to sale as many as you'd like to purchase. Seriously. This is no joke.

Is the phrase, "common sense", nothing more than a cliche to you?

Evidently, terminology is foreign to you.

What does the term "price" mean to you (other than what TV advertising
says).

Robert M. Gary wrote:

The fact that he
wasn't upfront about it is annoying, but sadly, the norm. When I was
looking at Champs 4 out of 5 were not technically airworthy according
to ADs. That doesn't make them illegal to sell, or a bad deal.


The fact that when the OP put out an alert warning people looking for
Cessnas in So Cal to look for these things the seller blew a gasket
tells me that the seller had every intention of keeping the major damage
history and signficant squawks a secret. After all, he may not
spontaneously give the info out, but why should he be mad and
threatening to sue when someone reminds buyers to look for this stuff?

I found the ad (link posted elsewhere on the thread), it was a $25K C175
which I agree should have been a red flag. But at a club member who is
contemplating buying, after reading this thread and seeing IMO the
shockingly high number of people who think the seller's behavior is
acceptable, I think that's a good indication that I better stay away
from buying planes any time in the near future.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
gy.com...

If you look hard enough 10 out of 10 airplanes are unairworthy. Nowhere

did

the buyer justify his claim the plane was not airworthy. His post sounded
to me like he seriously failed in his questioning before looking at the
plane then tried to blame the seller for his poor questioning. His
assumptions were based on what he thought he heard and wanted to hear not

on

what the seller said. Jim Weir hit the nail squarely on the head on this
one.


Yup...Caveat Emptor.

Likewise a car need not be roadworthy, or a building be inhabitable...and
it's the buyers responsibility to find out.

But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.

So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
legality.

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:

But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.

None of this is required in any of the States in which I have lived.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote in message ...
But (at least in the state where I live) the seller of a car is required
by law to voluntarily disclose any accident damage exceeding 25% of the
vehicle's value. sounds like that people don't seem to think the same
standard applies to airplanes.

Also in this state, a seller of a building is rquired by law to
voluntarily disclose a whole laundry list of problems and potential
problems, BEFORE an offer can be tendered.

So in both of the above cases, if hte seller were selling a car or a
building, what he did would be either illegal, or very questionable in
legality.


Oh, if only we could have more laws and regulations, we would never
have to be responsible for actually figuring out if something we buy
is good. Its good to know the gov't is willing to do all that for me.
I really, really hate it when I have to think. Just like I know its
safe to fly the J-3 into icing conditions because it doesn't say not
to. I know the gov't wouldn't let me hurt myself. In the mean time
I'll continue to let my 8 year old taxi the plane around by himself. I
know its safe, I checked the FARs.

-Robert