High time airframe question

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.


In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of a
total time?

In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of a
total time?

Good point.

A lot of folks are practically begging to sell right now. It's a great time
to be a buyer.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of
a total time?

Good point.

A lot of folks are practically begging to sell right now. It's a great
time to be a buyer.

True, except that about all of the nice 182RGs seem to have that
butt-ugly brown/orange interior with orange or brown paint! Man that is
ugly...

Matt

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
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.


In this market why would you screw with an airframe with that high of a
total time?

Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which are
very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of time and
they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not $50K
worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more inclined
to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a good part of
it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside yoke).

Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which are
very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of time
and they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not
$50K worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more
inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a
good part of it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside
yoke).

My observations:
The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass, mags,
brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses, AND
overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND repainted
plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what the low buck,
high time bird has because the listing only shows the plane's generic
specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the plane's actual
equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine, damage history,
"suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the pics for the low
buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low light that it
could actually look like anything in real life (great to terrible). The
pics on the higher priced plane are in the full light of day and appear
to show a plane in top shape (well they BOTH had Cessna radios...).

If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a
better listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.

Good Luck,
Mike

"Mike Spera" wrote in message
m...


Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which are
very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of time and
they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not
$50K worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more
inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a
good part of it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside
yoke).

My observations:
The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass, mags,
brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses, AND
overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND repainted
plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what the low buck,
high time bird has because the listing only shows the plane's generic
specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the plane's actual
equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine, damage history,
"suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the pics for the low
buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low light that it could
actually look like anything in real life (great to terrible). The pics on
the higher priced plane are in the full light of day and appear to show a
plane in top shape (well they BOTH had Cessna radios...).

If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a better
listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.

You're assuming worst case scenario for the high time bird and best case
scenario for the low time bird. The high time bird is either in decent
shape, or it is highly overpriced because you can definitely buy a decent
172 of that vintage for $39K. As far as the low time bird goes, the
question that should be going through one's mind is why would someone sink
that kind of money in a nearly 30 year old aircraft just to sell it? My
guess is the plane probably sat in a field for years before someone started
to fix it up and they found some "skeletons" such as corrosion which was
going to cost significantly more to repair or one of a number of other
issues. There are "skeletons" that can be found in high time and low time
aircraft. Furthermore you certainly can't give full value to all the
improvements made to the low time bird because you will never be able to
recoup those investments (although the seller is certainly trying). The
bottom line is people put a premium on low time aircraft, and there's simply
not much reason for it. I'd rather have an aircraft that spent its life
flying than one that spent a good part of its life as a bird and wasp
refuge.

Mike wrote:
"Mike Spera" wrote in message
m...



Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in
many instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there
which are very well equipped because those who were in them spent a
lot of time and they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the
same speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might
be in a little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even
functionally, but not $50K worth. If I were in the market for such a
plane, I would be more inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it
almost certainly spent a good part of it's life as a trainer (notice
the wear on the rightside yoke).


My observations:
The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass,
mags, brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses,
AND overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND
repainted plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what
the low buck, high time bird has because the listing only shows the
plane's generic specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the
plane's actual equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine,
damage history, "suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the
pics for the low buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low
light that it could actually look like anything in real life (great to
terrible). The pics on the higher priced plane are in the full light
of day and appear to show a plane in top shape (well they BOTH had
Cessna radios...).

If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a
better listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.


You're assuming worst case scenario for the high time bird and best case
scenario for the low time bird. The high time bird is either in decent
shape, or it is highly overpriced because you can definitely buy a
decent 172 of that vintage for $39K. As far as the low time bird goes,
the question that should be going through one's mind is why would
someone sink that kind of money in a nearly 30 year old aircraft just to
sell it? My guess is the plane probably sat in a field for years before
someone started to fix it up and they found some "skeletons" such as
corrosion which was going to cost significantly more to repair or one of
a number of other issues. There are "skeletons" that can be found in
high time and low time aircraft. Furthermore you certainly can't give
full value to all the improvements made to the low time bird because you
will never be able to recoup those investments (although the seller is
certainly trying). The bottom line is people put a premium on low time
aircraft, and there's simply not much reason for it. I'd rather have an
aircraft that spent its life flying than one that spent a good part of
its life as a bird and wasp refuge.

Some great points Mike. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth on
this one. I must have been real crabby that night.

I do have to stick to my opinion about the condition of the low time,
high priced bird because it is based on the descriptions, data, and
pictures. That said, even if it is pristine, at $89k I believe it is
about 15% or so overpriced for this market. You are correct in that the
high time bird may not be all that bad. But the pics and (non)
description don't inspired confidence. I agree that it may not be the
disaster I suggested. Have to have a look and more info.

As to your point on "upgrades", I agree that they should not (and do
not) command a full payback. But I don't consider a 0 time engine an
upgrade and would tend towards near full value on engines. Paint and
interior are also not upgrades in my mind, but they do appear to only
fetch a fraction of their cost in the used arena (Vref says $3k for
interior and I believe $5k for paint). Most of the rest of the replaced
components are also not upgrades to me. But having the stuff replaced is
better than having a hundred "crap shoots" bolted to the beast that
could go at any minute because of age and/or wear. That said, at 11k
hours, they MUST have replaced lots of stuff on the high timer. Again,
the lack of description of that plane leaves us guessing.

When I think about upgrades, I think about higher HP engines, 1 piece
windshields, Powerflow exhaust, flap/gap seals and other speed mods,
late model color moving map GPS in the panel, custom built seats and
interiors, speed cowlings, aerodynamic wing/stab tips, etc. I tend to
think of an upgrade as something the factory never put in the plane.
Opinions may vary on what constitutes an upgrade. I'm not terribly
wedded to my definition. It is just a word.

I also have to agree that we would need to hear the "story" about the
low time bird. Why someone would sink the dollars into the thing is a
great question. This one has "owner contracted disease and shelved the
bird hoping for a comeback" written all over it. But to your point, it
could also be a resurrected disaster that sat rotting in the high weeds
for 25 years.

You see, we are not all righteous, stubborn jerks on the 'Net (although
some of my postings may sound that way - apologies to the more sensitive
readers).

Thanks for the counterpoints,
Mike

"Mike Spera" wrote in message
m...
Mike wrote:
"Mike Spera" wrote in message
m...



Probably because high time airframes offer an even better value in many
instances. Also there's lots of high time airframes out there which
are very well equipped because those who were in them spent a lot of
time and they could justify costly improvements.

Here's two aircraft simularly equipped:

This one is listed for $39K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=114817

This one is listed for $89K
http://www.aso.com/i.aso3/aircraft_v...raft_id=115832

Both aircraft are the same age, carry the same weight, and go the same
speed. One is $50K cheaper than the other. The 2nd one might be in a
little better shape cosmetically and perhaps even functionally, but not
$50K worth. If I were in the market for such a plane, I would be more
inclined to buy #1 and that's even knowing it almost certainly spent a
good part of it's life as a trainer (notice the wear on the rightside
yoke).


My observations:
The second airplane had VERY low hours (1060) AND a zero time engine
overhaul AND a prop overhaul AND a 496 in the panel AND new glass, mags,
brakes, oil/fuel lines, tires, tubes, bat, vac lines, harnesses, AND
overhauled primary instruments AND new carpets/glareshield AND repainted
plastics AND a fresh strip/paint job. We have no idea what the low buck,
high time bird has because the listing only shows the plane's generic
specs for that year. Usually a dead giveaway that the plane's actual
equipment list has some skeletons (run out engine, damage history,
"suspicious" logbooks, inop equipment, etc.). All the pics for the low
buck plane are taken just far enough away and in low light that it
could actually look like anything in real life (great to terrible). The
pics on the higher priced plane are in the full light of day and appear
to show a plane in top shape (well they BOTH had Cessna radios...).

If the low dollar bird is typical (for 11k hours) these two planes can
easily be $50k (or more) apart. Hard to say specifically without a
better listing for the high timer and a personal inspection.


You're assuming worst case scenario for the high time bird and best case
scenario for the low time bird. The high time bird is either in decent
shape, or it is highly overpriced because you can definitely buy a decent
172 of that vintage for $39K. As far as the low time bird goes, the
question that should be going through one's mind is why would someone
sink that kind of money in a nearly 30 year old aircraft just to sell it?
My guess is the plane probably sat in a field for years before someone
started to fix it up and they found some "skeletons" such as corrosion
which was going to cost significantly more to repair or one of a number
of other issues. There are "skeletons" that can be found in high time
and low time aircraft. Furthermore you certainly can't give full value
to all the improvements made to the low time bird because you will never
be able to recoup those investments (although the seller is certainly
trying). The bottom line is people put a premium on low time aircraft,
and there's simply not much reason for it. I'd rather have an aircraft
that spent its life flying than one that spent a good part of its life as
a bird and wasp refuge.

Some great points Mike. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth on this
one. I must have been real crabby that night.

I do have to stick to my opinion about the condition of the low time, high
priced bird because it is based on the descriptions, data, and pictures.
That said, even if it is pristine, at $89k I believe it is about 15% or so
overpriced for this market. You are correct in that the high time bird may
not be all that bad. But the pics and (non) description don't inspired
confidence. I agree that it may not be the disaster I suggested. Have to
have a look and more info.

As to your point on "upgrades", I agree that they should not (and do not)
command a full payback. But I don't consider a 0 time engine an upgrade
and would tend towards near full value on engines. Paint and interior are
also not upgrades in my mind, but they do appear to only fetch a fraction
of their cost in the used arena (Vref says $3k for interior and I believe
$5k for paint). Most of the rest of the replaced components are also not
upgrades to me. But having the stuff replaced is better than having a
hundred "crap shoots" bolted to the beast that could go at any minute
because of age and/or wear. That said, at 11k hours, they MUST have
replaced lots of stuff on the high timer. Again, the lack of description
of that plane leaves us guessing.

From reading the description on the low time plane, I didn't get the
impression it was a 0 time engine. A 0 time engine to me means a factory
new engine or 0 TTSN. In this case the engine could be 0 TTSN, or it could
be 0 TSMOH, or it could be 0 TSTOH. I tend to suspect the latter, because
it isn't specified. The reason I think the plane has been sitting in a
field is because just about everything that wears out from just sitting has
been recently replaced or overhauled.

As far as valuation given to such things, I don't put a lot of value on
overhauled components, because I've had too much bad luck with such things.
In my experience, overhauled avionics (especially gyros) typically buys you
a few months and they are bad again. I'll take a good working gyro that's
been that way for a while over a recent overhaul any day of the week.
There's a few avionics overhaul shops that really do a good job, but they
are few and far between and are typically so expensive they charge almost as
much as buying new and are generally only worth it when you have original
avionics in an antique plane that simply can't be replaced with new. An
engine that has had a major overhaul may add value to a plane, but never the
full cost of the overhaul. The reason is because an engine that has high
time, but still has good specs, still has value. Let's say an engine is 300
hours away from TBO, but otherwise checks good at annual. It could go
another 3-6 years, and perhaps 300-800 hours before needing an overhaul. So
you can't automatically assume a high time engine is worthless. I've seen
major overhauls done buy guys I wouldn't trust to overhaul a lawnmower
engine so not all of those are equal either.

When I think about upgrades, I think about higher HP engines, 1 piece
windshields, Powerflow exhaust, flap/gap seals and other speed mods, late
model color moving map GPS in the panel, custom built seats and interiors,
speed cowlings, aerodynamic wing/stab tips, etc. I tend to think of an
upgrade as something the factory never put in the plane. Opinions may vary
on what constitutes an upgrade. I'm not terribly wedded to my definition.
It is just a word.

I also have to agree that we would need to hear the "story" about the low
time bird. Why someone would sink the dollars into the thing is a great
question. This one has "owner contracted disease and shelved the bird
hoping for a comeback" written all over it. But to your point, it could
also be a resurrected disaster that sat rotting in the high weeds for 25
years.

The two examples I provided probably weren't the best, but I just wanted to
demonstrate the price disparity between high and low time aircraft with
practically everything else being equal. You're right in that there's a
good chance of finding something wrong with the high time plane, however,
very few people will advertise what's wrong with their plane when they are
selling it regardless of how much time it has. Perhaps a few honest ones
will tell you when you ask. I just assume ALL planes for sale have
problems, unless I'm familiar with the owner and the plane in question.
You're also right in that there's some really turkeys out there that aren't
worth the money at practically any price because they have been maintained
by A&P's that do drive-by annuals. However there are some great deals out
there, and my experience has been that the great deals are on the high time
airplanes simply because everyone who sells a low time plane demands a high
premium simply based on the low airframe time.

You see, we are not all righteous, stubborn jerks on the 'Net (although
some of my postings may sound that way - apologies to the more sensitive
readers).

This is just helpful discussion. That's what usenet is all about, but
unfortunately not for some.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:33:38 GMT, "Mike" wrote:


From reading the description on the low time plane, I didn't get the
impression it was a 0 time engine. A 0 time engine to me means a factory
new engine or 0 TTSN. In this case the engine could be 0 TTSN, or it could
be 0 TSMOH, or it could be 0 TSTOH. I tend to suspect the latter, because
it isn't specified. The reason I think the plane has been sitting in a
field is because just about everything that wears out from just sitting has
been recently replaced or overhauled.

Isn't a factory reman also 0 time w/ new logbooks?