A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

High time airframe question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 17th 08, 11:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Mike[_22_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 466
Default High time airframe question

"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.

  #2  
Old July 18th 08, 02:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,767
Default High time airframe question

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
  #3  
Old July 18th 08, 05:59 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Jim Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 437
Default High time airframe question

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.
  #4  
Old July 18th 08, 04:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,767
Default High time airframe question

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
  #5  
Old July 18th 08, 12:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Mike[_22_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 466
Default High time airframe question

"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.

  #6  
Old July 18th 08, 03:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Jay Honeck[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 943
Default High time airframe question

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"

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High time Bo A36 anyone? Matt Whiting Owning 9 February 8th 08 10:45 PM
High time homebuilts alice Home Built 2 February 17th 07 07:06 AM
typical total time and PIC time question AJW Piloting 12 October 15th 04 03:52 AM
First Time Buyer - High Time Turbo Arrow [email protected] Owning 21 July 6th 04 07:30 PM
152 with high time lycoming Dave Owning 1 June 27th 04 06:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.