Annual Costs - Take the Pledge

Wiley wrote:
: outdoors untouched for 3 years. As the service dept. of the flight
snip
: inspection of a neglected airplane. At least now I know the plane is

I don't think I'd call 3 years unloved as neglected. While it's certainly not
good for it, there are a lot of people flying planes out there that sit for long periods
of time (or worse yet, run for 5 minutes on the ground when it's cold out). If it was in
good shape beforehand, the camshaft is probably the main concern.

If the plane truly needed $23k worth of maintainance, it should have been fairly
obvious. As your post states, having a conflict of interest is a bad thing... the main
reason why I don't trust any work that's not a *combination* of my personal inspection,
and a mechanic who knows more than me. It's my butt in the plane if it goes TU.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

Cory, seems we have differing ideas of what constitutes neglect. That
Lance sat outside uncovered at a coastal CT airport for over 3 years
on three flat dry-rotted tires with a collapsed front strut. I swear
the owner forgot he owned an airplane. While there may be lots of
planes that sit for long periods, I think 3 years is a bit excessive.
I was concerned about engine corrosion because the engine was never
pickled, but luckily it has chrome cylinders that were in good shape.
Two of these were recently overhauled, and the internal inspection
showed no corrosion on the cam.
What was "fairly obvious" was that this was going to be an expensive
renovation. So far the panel work cost 14k, and the plane was just
painted for another 7k. Although that last annual cost a bunch (that
IS an expensive shop) the owner has never questioned anything I told
him the plane needed. After all, he hadn't paid for an annual for the
previous 3 years.
I really have no right to be ****ed about the crappy inspection the
first shop did - even considering it was MY butt strapped into the
seat. Several other posters quoted some form of the old adage "You get
what you pay for". I agree - 'nuff said.


wrote in message

I don't think I'd call 3 years unloved as neglected. While it's certainly not
good for it, there are a lot of people flying planes out there that sit for long periods

If the plane truly needed $23k worth of maintainance, it should have been fairly
obvious.

It's my butt in the plane if it goes TU.

Wiley wrote:
: Cory, seems we have differing ideas of what constitutes neglect. That
: Lance sat outside uncovered at a coastal CT airport for over 3 years
: on three flat dry-rotted tires with a collapsed front strut.

Fair enough.... sounds abused and neglected. I was merely stating that 3 years of
non-flying constitues niether necessary nor sufficient grounds for labeling a plane
neglected and abused.

I would venture a rule of thumb that a "flat-tire special" airplane will probably
cost more to have fixed up than it's worth. If you fix it up and do as much work on it
yourself as possible, it could go either way. On the average, it probably costs a bit
more, but at least you know everything about it on the way.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************