High time airframe question

"David Lesher" wrote

Sniffers? The patrol plane that flew our lines uses a Mark One eyeball.

What type of lines? Buried or surface?
--
Jim in NC

"David Lesher" wrote

Sniffers? The patrol plane that flew our lines uses a Mark One eyeball.

What type of lines? Buried or surface?
--
Jim in NC

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.

High time airplane owners will tell you it is a non issue.

Low time owners will tell you to avoid high time airframes like the plague.

As a few brokers what the insurance company take is on airframe time.

Good Luck,
Mike

I was typically at 500 feet (or a bit more)and the air was pretty
smooth. Early morning. I know others used it as an excuse to low fly the
route. Having to pull up for fences and trees. I think the hotdogging
was hard on the airplane.

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
How many of those hours were spent doing pipeline patrols or other
activities that are tough on the airframe? It is my recollection that
piper wing separations tended to occur on hightime airframes that
also spent considerable time doing pipeline patrols.

otoh - 11,000 hours on that warrior is how many hours per year?

--
Bob Noel


I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
am I missing?

My broker's forms do include a question about TT on the airplane, but I
don't if it's included in the accident risk formula, the value of the
airframe, a cross check to see if I've given them the right information on
my yearly flying time, or all of the above.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


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

High time airplane owners will tell you it is a non issue.

Low time owners will tell you to avoid high time airframes like the
plague.

As a few brokers what the insurance company take is on airframe time.

Good Luck,
Mike

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.

Drew Dalgleish wrote:

I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
am I missing?

Nope, down low and if the wings are level for more than about 30 seconds
at a time it is because the pilot is on final.

David Lesher wrote:
"Morgans" writes:


I would have thought pipeline patrol to be pretty easy hours. Flying
straight and level for long periods and mostly well under gross. What
am I missing?

Nap of the earth flying, jinking, turning and diving and climbing.

I believe they have to stay close to the pipeline for their sniffers to
work. That would put more stress on the airframe than training, except for
the landing gear.

Sniffers? The patrol plane that flew our lines uses a Mark One eyeball.



Mk I eyeball is all the guys that fly pipeline around here use.

On Jul 19, 6:55 am, Mike Spera wrote:

High time airplane owners will tell you it is a non issue.

Low time owners will tell you to avoid high time airframes like the plague.

And mechanics who work on higher-time light aircraft, like me,
will tell you that all designs have their weak points that need
checking, and that many mechanics either don't know those weak points
or don't care. High-time airplanes that did nothing but long cross-
countries won't be likely to have the fatigue problems that we find in
trainers, but at the same time, the owners of those cross-country 172s
might be doing things that break stuff, like pushing down on the stab
to maneuver the airplane on the ground (breaking the forward stab
spar) or using grass or gravel runways that cause a lot of fuselage
flexing while taxiing over rougher ground (cracking the doorposts in a
spot that is very hard to see and unlikely to get looked at). Cessna
has a number of SEBs on such items, as well as the Continuing
Airworthiness Program stuff that cover more of these issues. The
Cessna R182 (182RG) has its problems, too, such as cracking gear
actuators ($8000 for a new casting) and aft fuselage bulkhead cracks.
Just because no 172s have come apart in flight (that I know of)
doesn't mean that they'll not start doing so. Sooner or later one
will, and I wouldn't want to be one of the people in it. Many owners
think they're getting good maintenance (because their shop tells them
so) and when we look at one of those airplanes we find the usual
cracks. And cracked or broken exhaust components, which will either
poison you or set fire to the airplane; take your pick. And many other
things, too.
If these cracks are caught by your mechanic, they won't kill
you but they'll kill your bank account. If we have a choice between a
"well-maintained" (yeah, right) older high-timer and one that has sat
for years, I'll take the sitter as long as it doesn't have corrosion
issues (humidity, salt air, or non-human residents). Both airplanes
will need new engines and interiors and other plastic and rubber bits
replaced. The high-timer will need structural repairs, maybe a lot of
them. They're not cheap. By the time you're done you could have far
more tied up in the airplane than it would ever be worth in resale
value.

Dan