Call Justus or René, they can help you: https://www.air-craft.biz/
@snoopy basically what you need is a solid recommendation from an aircraft owner, of a mechanic who works on his plane.
Don’t just pick someone who pops up on a forum, for example. Too many horror stories…
Most mechanics don’t travel far because they are busy, so it helps to specify the country. Mine is good but he is too busy to travel too far away from SE England.
Also you need to be present during the inspection. Too many horror stories…
Concerning my recommendation: Justus and René maintain some aircraft from friends of mine and there is no horror story to be expected.
I will candidly try to help:
You need to look at this engine and pre-buy issue at least from two (intersecting but unfortunately different) points of view:
A) The initial and continued airworthiness
B) The safety of your flights and containment of maintenance costs
For B), the advise of @Peter and @mh are probably very valid (I cannot endorse the reference but have no reason to question them either). I would however ask if some of those aircraft they regularly and horrorlessly maintain have TSIO-520 engines of any kind , preferrably on SE Cessnas (does not have to be a 206/207).
For A) you need to involve your planned CAMO and Part 145/66. Let me explain:
You are surely planning to to involve a CAMO for your operation.
Even though Justus and Renè or whosever services you end up hiring could be the best T207 inspector in the world, their criteria will not necessarily match that of your CAMO.
At the expiry of the current ARC, your CAMO will have to issue a new one, and anything outside THEIR criteria will need correction at your cost or you will lose airworthiness and have a beautiful pile of expensive metal in your hangar (in the meantime time will be working against you).
The best way of guaranteeing that will not happen is if they (your CAMO) evaluate the aircraft for you before you buy: they will not easily contradict themselves with new findings on your post-purchase ARC renewal that were not raised by themselves during the pre-buy (unless they are genuine new findings). This is much more likely in a heavily worked-on and modified aircraft like this beautiful 207. A similar thing for your planned maintenance shop/team, who will not sign your annual/200hrs inspection if they find items needing correction per THEIR criteria.
We cannot assume every EASA-approved organisation’s criteria is the same: things are slowly getting better for ELA2 aircraft (especially on non-commercial OPS) but there are still many areas where compliance is a certain shade of grey.
A lot of owners in this forum have gone on that trip, got a very expensive T-shirt in the process to prove their experience and know exactly what I am talking of.
OTOH, I like that airplane too! It is a beautiful one! I am sure you will be successful and have a lot of fun in your ownership trip, since you are asking a lot of the right questions!
OTOH the engine is not looking so good for commercial ops.
For private use, it looks veery good.
For commercial ops you are missing a bottom-end OH. When was it last performed?
What sort of commercial ops?
Very little can be done in a SEP. Sightseeing, traffic spotting for a radio station (I knew someone who got an AOC for that), what else?
Thank you! Will answer in more detail later!
It would be a combination of
Private trips (250nm) under day vfr/ifr
AOC a—a ops for sightseeing
Foto/Survey ops
If all fails paradropping ;)
Finally at the desk to further comment on this thread.
I’ll start by thanking all of you, your advice is invaluable!
To elaborate a bit on why I am interested in the plane at all:
1) 4 Seaters are plenty.
I have alway been interested in a plane with more than 4 seats. It may sound ridiculous, but I could have done many more private flights with friends and family if the unit costs would be lower. A standard short hop to Venice in the morning and back in the evening runs at around 1000€ for a rental Cirrus, so 250€ a seat. Not exactly a bargain, but manageable for many people I know that are very interested in experiencing such a nice trip. My friend wanted to gift such a flight to his parents. I explained that it will be his parents, him and me. He said that splurging a 1000€ a day is fine, but then he’d want his wife to join too.
Just at my local base I can charter two Turbo-Arrows, a DA40NG, a Cirrus, a C172, a DA42, a C182 etc… no six seaters available. Maybe for a reason (note to self!), they didn’t make sense and got sold or whatever. If demand for a six seater was so great there would probably be one available… or maybe not and it is a niche.
2) Old airplanes
Some of the planes available to charter are just crap. They feature ripped, worn out interior, avionics panels that look like a christmas tree, mold smell etc..
It led me to fly only the new 172 (which has a G1000 but no A/P), the DA40NG and mostly the Cirrus SR22 (the only true 4 seater). The T207A featured in this discussion is already registered in Austria, based close by enabling simple viewing and prebuy and at least from the pictures looks very nice. It has been recently renovated by someone who clearly had the necessary funds to do it right. I see much less risk than buying a plane from a far away place. I duly note all the cautions about maintenance worries (different levels of “maintained” etc..) but in the end the EASA regulatory framework does provide at least a bit of protection compared to buying a plane from another continent.
3) Entrepreneurial itch and (private) utility
I am not naive to believe a T207A will provide for a living. But, I do think it has some commercial potential. While pure sightseeing might be unrealistic given Wingly etc.. I think a smartly marketed combination (depending on actual costs for the AOC) of tourist flights (seasonal, perhaps), private flights and at last special ops (paradropping, foto, survery) can work.
4) Cost
Yes, a Caravan would be better. Or a DA62. Or any other new plane that goes for 1 million plus. That’s “multi millionaire” territory, and the risk for anyone else just isn’t worth it. The depreciation alone would be more than the cost of this 207. All in all, while still A LOT of money, the overall financial risk is not that high. How much is a new PT6 again? ;)
According to a sightseeing operator in the USA (that acquired and shipped a 207 from Australia to the US) the T207 is the only plane that can remotely deliver at lower cost what usually involves spending upwards of 750k USD for a plane.
Some quotes:
There is no airplane with the same capabilities for less than 750k – 1M$. Extra operating costs because difficult to find parts for the airframe. Engine/turbo is no different than other installations.
Max weight is 5 adult passengers. But, allows to seat a family of 4 or 5 comfortably.
expensive parts, little things that shouldn’t be expensive, but they are due to their rarity. You’d think everything would be interchangable with 206 parts, but they’re not. For instance, something like a door latch handle may end up costing $500
Climb is normally at 100kts to keep the CHTs cool – never over 400. RPM at 2600, MP to 30” , adjust fuel flowfor cooling. …depending on the conditions of the day with a fuel burn as lean as 14 gal per hour, but usually 15-16 gph.
not a single cylinder issue with TSIO-520M. Expect them to make it to TBO.Plane in question history: USA (delivery registration), UK, Italy.
Registration Number: N1349W
Mode S (ICAO24) Code: A08DB5
Registration Cancel Date: 1983-10-05
G-NJAP Delivery: 1983-10-06 Cancel: 1984-09-18
I-TOAD De-registered Cancel: 2017-03-07
Antonio wrote:
Since you will use a CAMO I suggest you share evidence and plans with them in advance of purchase. I also suggest them and your part-145/66 maintenance to be involved in pre-buy.
Exactly the kind of advice I need. Before going deeper into this I want to know what I will be dealing with. Thanks!
dejwu wrote:
When transferring an aircraft from outside Europe, make sure the engine papers show a dual release Form One or equivalent, or you may end up in redoing it again for sole paper reason alone.
Fortunately the aircraft is already registered “at home”.
dejwu wrote:
If the papers say OH’ed and it is signed off with zero hours engine time, it will be legally ok for commercial use, which says nothing about your confidence in that specific engine.
This is an important aspect. So I’d need to find an engine specialist who takes it apart or borescopes it? Flying other people around is a tremendous responsibility and there simply cannot be any technical defects on the only engine.
Peter wrote:
enarios where exceeding the 12 years is not allowed (typically, moving a plane to a new registry, or operating on AOC) I don’t recall ever seeing a requirement for a “new” engine. A standard overhaul is OK.
I have inquired if this was a full overhaul or top overhaul, and if, officially, the engine was zero timed or not. Awaiting an answer presently..
dejwu wrote:
What 8130-3 certificates came with the ‘repair’ (gives you an idea which parts were new on TOH) and what does the Maintenance Record show as Time since overhaul in the Release to Service document?
I have inquired about this.
Right now all I have are these documents: Maintenance Documents Link wrote:
I can offer a data point saying the opposite…
Peter wrote:
BTW, turbo engines need some extra due diligence in this scenario, due to their habit of eating exhausts etc.
I have heard this oftern. Also with the turbo Cirri. Apparently some people experience up to 10k € per year maintenance due to the turbo…
dejwu wrote:
I agree, smells a bit. Continental lists the TSIO-520-M as TBO 1600 hours max.12 years (1400 for engine S/N < 1006000).Yes, Turbo needs some special attention and DD, but no big deal.
Btw, my engine had an additional ‘REPAIRED’ at 4h52 SMOH (long story) and that did not zero the engine again.
What specifically? Compression in combination with borescope? Exhaust system?
mh wrote:
Call Justus or René
Thank, will do if needed.
Antonio wrote:
OTOH, I like that airplane too! It is a beautiful one! I am sure you will be successful and have a lot of fun in your ownership trip, since you are asking a lot of the right questions!
Thanks. Any other questions I should ask?
Antonio wrote:
OTOH the engine is not looking so good for commercial ops.For private use, it looks veery good.
For commercial ops you are missing a bottom-end OH. When was it last performed?
Have inquired about this! Thanks!
Thanks again to all for the interesting discussion and excellent advice!
Snoopy wrote:
special ops (paradropping
Please don’t use a nice aeroplane like that for meat missiles. The Turbo is useless for skydiving anyway. Not my opinion the words of one of the most experienced 206 fleet owners in Europe. He wouldn’t take a Turbo at knockdown money, and he was offered one only recently. It doesn’t work for that application, he’s got 3 of them going flat out.
I’ve got a friend doing survey work in a 172RG and it’s a much smarter use of an aeroplane. If you want to get an idea of the general condition of the aeroplane, open the most awkward hidden panel and see what it looks like under the floor. Probably behind the pedestal, down where the fuel selector is mounted is the hardest place to get to. If you could drop a sweet on the floor and pick it up and eat it, then you are probably looking at a good one. Places like that are crucial to have clean. Any rivet bucktails/avionics pins/swarf/washers etc could jam the elevator trim chain. Cleanliness of the deep dark places is a good guide as to how it’s been minded.
Thank you William for chiming in! No meatballs noted!
