First Time Buyer - High Time Turbo Arrow

I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.

My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the
aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine.

Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the
airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as
this?

I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to ask for an engine oil
analysis among other things? I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to
look at it, so I'm curious to hear how people handle that. More than
one trip, I would guess.

Any advice would be appreciated.

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 21:17:47 -0400, " Mark
Miller wrote:

I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.

My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the
aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine.

Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the
airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as
this?

I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to ask for an engine oil
analysis among other things? I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to
look at it, so I'm curious to hear how people handle that. More than
one trip, I would guess.

Any advice would be appreciated.

7000 hours can vary greatly. Were all 7000 spent training students?
Or were most cross country flights made by owners. I own a Cherokee
235B with about 6700 hours and it flies great! I was not concerned at
all when I went to see the airplane as I had read through the logbooks
and had a picture of the planes past use and maintenance. I also had
pictures of the exterior and interior.

I was within a 6 hour train ride so it wasn't so bad, but when I got
on the train I knew if the pre-buy matched what I already thought I'd
give the guy a check. Needless to say, it worked out.

Someone I respect with more than 60 years as a mechanic and airport
operator has a neat concept for bringing owner and buyer together.

Study the logs(with your mechanic), look at pictures, etc. and get a
feel for if you want the plane. If you do, offer the seller
re-imbursement for all expenses to get the plane to you, and a return
trip on the airline of his choice if the pre-buy goes as expected.
You may even want to send him a check for 500 or 1000 dollars so he
knows you're serious. If he balks he may be hiding something.
Obviously he may not have the time either, but try to convince him to
get the plane to you. An honest seller shouldn't have any problem
with this approach. You won't lose any money either because you'll
have to pay it for you to travel anyway, and it'll let your mechanic
do the once over. It'll also allow the owner to have one last flight
in his bird.,

I've seen this work first hand, and the mechanic I'm speaking of says
it has worked many time in his life. It'll also save you multiple
trips across the country.

Hope this helps.

z

When is the annual due?
When I bought my plane I had the owner agree to pay for an annual at a
shop of my choosing - with the understanding that I guaranteed to buy it
unless any major unresolved concerns arose from the annual.
One item that I included was oil analysis.

Insist on oil analysis (although it won't tell you zip about the high
time airframe, it will tell you lots about the engine.

Insist that all outstanding AD's are fixed at this annual,

and have a thorough examination/report on the airframe.

I did all of those things, the owner agreed, and now I own the aircraft.
It's a buyers market - don't let anyone tell you otherwise

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument
Cessna 172H C-GICE






In article ,
" Mark Miller wrote:

I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.

My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the
aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine.

Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the
airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as
this?

I'm also wondering if it is reasonable to ask for an engine oil
analysis among other things? I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to
look at it, so I'm curious to hear how people handle that. More than
one trip, I would guess.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Mark Miller wrote:
: I'm looking at a 1982 Turbo Arrow as a first time purchase. I'm not
: new to aviation, and have sufficient time in the make/model to satisfy
: the insurance company. I haven't looked at the plane in person yet,
: but have had a few conversations with the owner about it.

My mechanic has a '77 turbo arrow with the Continental TSIO-360 210hp in it.
I would imagine the '82 is the same?. I (personally) wouldn't touch that
engine/airframe combination with a "10-meter cattle prod." It's notorious for
roasting cylinders, cooking turbos, and has an extremely twitchy throttle response due
to the turbo lag/boost. Even with the improved STC'd wastegate he put on, it's
still twitchy and makes boost all the time that must be throttled. It's also
necessarily neutered at 7:1 to keep it from detonating. I get 180 hp out of a carb'd
O-360 with more detonation margin on 93 octane cargas than his TSIO-360 on 100LL. Of
course if you go high, it's a different game, but my friend doesn't even have his
oxygen set up.

If that's the setup you want/need, that's fine... just making you aware of the
issues. I'd much rather have more engine and normally aspirated, but for an arrow
you're kinda stuck. If I ever get a turbo it'll be turbo-normalized at most.

Other than that, I wouldn't let 7000 hours dissuade you inherently. It's much
more a matter of how those hours were put on and maintained. Check the logs
thoroughly with someone who works on Arrows a lot, but don't assume they're correct.
There's an awful lot of "pencil-whipping" out there... especially for expensive
repairs. Take your mechanic arrow-expert to look at it... he'll know what big (read:
expensive) items to check for (gear issues, signs of a gear-up landing, shoddy
avionics installs, etc).

-Cory


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

On 19-Jun-2004, " Mark Miller wrote:

I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to look at it, so I'm curious to hear
how people handle that. More than
one trip, I would guess.

Any advice would be appreciated.



Before spending a lot of time and money traveling to see the airplane, why
not have an objective person located nearby have a look? What we did in
this case was arrange for a local mechanic (NOT the one doing regular
maintenance on the plane) spend about an hour looking for obvious problems.
This is NOT an adequate pre-buy, just an initial screening to keep you from
wasting time and money on obvious dogs. A good $60-80 investment.

If the mechanic (or it could be a trusted pilot friend) reports back that
the plane APPEARS to be as advertised, THEN go ahead and arrange for a
thorough pre-buy and/or an in-person inspection.

--
-Elliott Drucker

Make sure you have the owner pick you up at the airport in his car.

You can pretty much make a determination, then and there, about the airplane
just by looking at his car. This happened to me when I went to Denver to
look at an Aztec that was billed as immaculate. When the guy (airline pilot,
that should raise the warning flag) picked me up in a beater BMW I suspected
the worst, and I was sorely disappointed in the airplane.

Sellers often extremely overstate the condition of the airplane for sale.

Beware, and remember the vast majority of pilots are cheapskates!

Karl



wrote in message
...

On 19-Jun-2004, " Mark Miller wrote:

I'll likely have to fly (commercial) to look at it, so I'm curious to
hear
how people handle that. More than
one trip, I would guess.

Any advice would be appreciated.



Before spending a lot of time and money traveling to see the airplane, why
not have an objective person located nearby have a look? What we did in
this case was arrange for a local mechanic (NOT the one doing regular
maintenance on the plane) spend about an hour looking for obvious
problems.
This is NOT an adequate pre-buy, just an initial screening to keep you
from
wasting time and money on obvious dogs. A good $60-80 investment.

If the mechanic (or it could be a trusted pilot friend) reports back that
the plane APPEARS to be as advertised, THEN go ahead and arrange for a
thorough pre-buy and/or an in-person inspection.

--
-Elliott Drucker

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 06:52:35 -0700, "kage"
wrote:

You can pretty much make a determination, then and there, about the airplane
just by looking at his car.


I don't agree. I drive a used car that looks like hell, but is
mechanically sound. I did this as a trade off so I had enough money
to buy and maintain my airplane (which looks nothing like my car).

z

I would imagine the '82 is the same?. I (personally) wouldn't touch that
engine/airframe combination with a "10-meter cattle prod." It's notorious
for roasting cylinders, cooking turbos, and has an extremely twitchy throttle
response due to the turbo lag/boost.

As I recall, this was essentially the Av. Consumer's conclusion as
well - the TSIO-360/PA-28R airframe has been a problematic match in
the hands of less than careful, low-altitude operators. At 1100 SMOH
and unknown history, you should probably consider it a near-runout.
But, with a fresh engine and good engine instrumentation, it can
probably be managed. I know there aren't many other candidates in this
price range, the TR182's are expensive, straight-leg T182s are rare,
and not many 177RG's have been converted yet, either.

I agree with you! For a long time the car I drove to the airport was a
sad-looking beater. It was roadworthy, like yours, but it wasn't the kind
that picked up chicks. Far from it.

"zatatime" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 06:52:35 -0700, "kage"
wrote:

You can pretty much make a determination, then and there, about the
airplane
just by looking at his car.


I don't agree. I drive a used car that looks like hell, but is
mechanically sound. I did this as a trade off so I had enough money
to buy and maintain my airplane (which looks nothing like my car).

z

Mark Miller wrote:
: My question is really about the airframe total time. Presently the
: aircraft has 7000 hrs. on the airframe, and 1150 on the engine.

: Should I steer clear of a plane with this kind of time on the
: airframe? What are the concerns with an airframe as high in time as
: this?

As others have said, the PA28 airframe should be OK at that hour figure;
mine has 6300+ hours on it, and one of the rentals at my home field
has 13,000+ hours on it.

A friend of mine has a 77 or 78 non-turbo arrow. His has 9000+ hours on it.
He has found that the main difficulties were with the main gear trunions,
which were quite worn. I believe that Piper has a service bulletin on this
typw of wear. He also had problems with the wing-walk reinforcement which is
typical for a Cherokee.
Other than that it has been a very solid airplane for him.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)