Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Used Aircraft with Timed Out Engines

It’s always interesting to hear which aircraft people buy, after they buy them, and why they made their choice.

Everybody knows if you buy a good used car and just drive it, doing as little as necessary, its cheaper than restoring an old car or buying a new car. The same thing applies to planes, and people who earn discretionary income get to choose what direction to go. The reason to buy an aircraft and build it into what you want is because done wisely its often the most economical way to get what you want, as opposed to what would be acceptable if you hadn’t earned the right to a financial choice.

You could spend less money, buy a used plane and leave it as-is. It might not be what you want. You could also spend many times more money and buy new, which may or may not be what you want. They are all valid choices that a guy spending his money might consider.

My approach has been to buy a couple of fair deals that have allowed me to do some work over a period of years, and mostly fly in the meantime. The final effect is much the same as doing a project on a plane needing immediate work (i.e. I get what I want) but the cash flow is smoother. I’ve rarely if ever sold an enjoyable vehicle in worse condition than I bought it, and that’s what I want to do.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 01 Jul 03:50

I’ve rarely if ever sold an enjoyable vehicle in worse condition than I bought it

Agree – you are not going to make money keeping a GA aircraft in good condition, but you may be able to re sell it and not abandon it to be a ramp mummy. Also there is a safety and reliability objective in flying an aircraft being maintained to a good standard.

I also agree with Peter that I would prefer an aircraft with run out engines than old engines (over twelve years since overhaul) with so called ‘half life’ to TBO.

The cost of maintenance of complex types in Europe seems to have raced ahead of inflation; hence simple fixed gear, fixed pitch, four seaters in good condition appear to hold a better residual value and be easier to sell on.

Some modest vintage types seem to be appreciating, eg Tiger Moth which in good condition are worth north of £60k, or the Super Cub in the USA which seems to sell for silly money.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

The idea of moving parts and components from “legacy” aircraft, which have been retired, to keep the “new” fleet going rarely works out, as most of the parts are ineligible for reinstallation on the newer types – and the avionics removed are not even worth the cost to reinstall them. If you’re contemplating the purchase of a plane as an investment, good luck. No one builds a plane as an investment, so why presume it could become a good one? That said, it happens from time to time.

I bought my 150M in 1987 with an engine with 100 hours remaining until TBO (1700 hrs TTSN) – but it was “on condition” eligible. I paid $7000 for the plane in flying condition. I did the required engine maintenance to meet the requirements, and keep it airworthy, and only overhauled it when it reached 3650 hrs, though upon disassembly, it did not really need the overhaul. I god a good deal on an awesome repaint in 1992, which still looks good, I put in a used TXP, which still works well, and a brand new (in 1994) King GPS Comm, which is still quite adequate. I totally redid the interior in 1995, including leather seats, and with new carpets this spring, it is totally presentable. Yes, I invested quite a lot in the plane, but its worth in the high $20K, and in the mean time, I have flown in 2800 hours. I sometimes think that if I ever sell it, it will have paid me to fly it! But it’s the world’s second most common plane, and really cost effective to fly. Lots of types are the complete opposite.

I will respectfully present the other side of thinking to those who choose to overhaul an engine at a number of hours or years in service. It’s fine if you would like to do that, but the engine might still have lots of life, if operated well, regularly, and cared for. My experience has been that 95% of the time, engines give you fair warning that they need maintenance – the owner must learn to listen. The remaining 5% of unhappy engine surprises are rarely right around TBO, they are any time.

I bought a 1977 182Q four years ago for a friend. Aside from a 600 hour SMO engine and prop, the plane was original, undamaged, and very airworthy. The engine was destined for STC’d replacement anyway, so the original engine was sold (after I flew it 35 hours home). It was found to have a cracked crankshaft by NDT during a bulk inspection. Good catch! Fortunately, grinding the journal .010" under took out the crack – that was lucky! Caught in the nick of time!

I used to work with fellows who operated an aircraft junk yard, they bought all the wrecks. I was one of the guys who flew or walked into the bush to get them out. These guys were masters of selling the parts for much more than buying the whole. They also bought runout flying planes, of all SE types, and aprted them out, again, some were worth more in pieces than whole. A perk of the job was that I ferried these condemned planes home to their final resting point (a runway so short, few planes could fly out!). A perk of the job was that for the gas, I could fly off whatever time remained until the next required maintenance. I probably flew 20+ such aircraft over the years. Occasionally we would actually do some maintenance, and sell it flying. But, I was never let down by one of these planes, and some I flew as much as 50 hours over many months.

Old planes require care to remain airworthy, just like new ones (but can often be had for 10% the cost of the new one). A part of that difference is what you should be prepared to pay in maintenance cost, because you budget that into your flying……

Home runway, in central Ontario, Canada, Canada

I will respectfully present the other side of thinking to those who choose to overhaul an engine at a number of hours or years in service. It’s fine if you would like to do that, but the engine might still have lots of life, if operated well, regularly, and cared for. My experience has been that 95% of the time, engines give you fair warning that they need maintenance – the owner must learn to listen. The remaining 5% of unhappy engine surprises are rarely right around TBO, they are any time.

I would agree 200% – for an engine whose history you can be fairly sure of. Especially if you open up the oil filter, do oil analysis, have an engine monitor, etc.

The problem, which I suspect is bigger here in Europe due to high marginal costs of flying, is that there are more cases of neglect here – in all its various forms. Not far from where I am based was a 421C which flew c. 4hrs/year and lived outdoors (seaside) the rest of the time. The Annuals (c. 20k a time) were what you might call a spectacular misapplication of money. Setting aside the “spare engine” argument (which I don’t really buy into because an engine failure in a twin is still an emergency) would you buy a SEP which had 10 years of that? I suppose a rusted up engine isn’t more likely to just break catastrophically…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I like the idea of buying a sound airframe with a run-out engine, as once the engine is overhauled I have a fresh engine that I know who’s worked on for when I next head out over the north Irish Sea. I buy a plane to fly not as an investment so I don’t really care about return on investment, my “return on investment” is how much fun it is to fly. The aircraft being a known quantity helps enhance that fun level. A couple of years ago we re-did the wing fabric (and took care of a bunch of other items that were easier to take care of when the wings were off) on the Auster and it was 75% of the cost of what some Austers are selling for in the LAA mag. The difference is we have more information about our particular aircraft since we’ve had it a while, and now someone’s had a really good look in the wings, so we’re not worrying anywhere near as much as if we’d just bought a mid-time (between fabric or engine, it doesn’t matter) similar aircraft. That information is worth a lot!

Last Edited by alioth at 01 Jul 11:13
Andreas IOM

The remaining 5% of unhappy engine surprises are rarely right around TBO, they are any time.

This isn’t wrong, but it is not entirely correct either in my opinion. The basic theory of maintenance is you have random errors that can happen at any time, but beyond a certain time of operation some random errors starts to occur more frequently, statistically speaking. The reason being wear and age, the engine starts to fall out of its specs. All engines are run and operated differently, so the exact time this happens will vary between individual engines. Lets say the TBO is set at a time where 5% of the engines are ready for overhaul, this still means that the 95% remaining engines are in perfectly good condition, and can be so for 1000+ more hours. It could be another number than 5%, it could also very well be 50%, because even though the engine is not within specs, this doesn’t automatically mean it will suffer catastrophic break down with any higher probability, at least not before overhaul. But who knows, there is no data about this available.

My experience has been that 95% of the time, engines give you fair warning that they need maintenance – the owner must learn to listen.

This may be true, but the very concept of this kind of operation is full of errors. The obvious one is that things deteriorate so slow and linear that you will not notice any change. A pilot who flies lots of different aircraft may hear that there is something wrong with one particular engine, but not the owner an daily user of that aircraft/engine.

Last Edited by LeSving at 01 Jul 11:53
The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

…but beyond a certain time of operation some random errors starts to occur more frequently, statistically speaking.

Yes, unfortunately. The turbine failure that I experienced a couple of weeks ago occured roughly 2/3 into TBO and after the hot section inspection had been done with no findings. The engine has been “touched” by three pilots only during the last six years, mostly by me and far far away from every limitation. Maintenace by the book, always hangared, always covered when outside for more than an hour. Still failed. And with no previous warning at all. On my three piston engine failures I also got no early warning of any kind. Working normally now, failed a second later…

Last Edited by what_next at 01 Jul 12:07
EDDS - Stuttgart

It may well be that in an engine that has not had a prop strike catastrophic mechanical failures are pretty random. They ought to be, because steel doesn’t suffer fatigue like aluminium does. They might be caused almost entirely by manufacturing defects.

But catastrophic mechanical failures are very rare. If they weren’t, GA would be unworkable and most of us would be dead because we would have so many forced landings that eventually every one of us would mess one up. And all passengers would disappear long before that happened.

What happens more often is smaller failures e.g. piston pins getting loose. To be fair though, you don’t get a sudden stoppage from that. The Q then becomes whether you like to wait for that sort of thing till it happens, or be a bit more pro-active and get the engine looked at at say 2k hrs. The drawback of getting an engine opened is that most engine shops (especially here in Europe, where expertise is pretty thin) have a fair chance of screwing up.

On my three piston engine failures I also got no early warning of any kind. Working normally now, failed a second later…

What sort of maintenance history do you think these had, WN? Did you have them since new, and what were the failures?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

On my three piston engine failures

If you don’t mind me asking, how many of your hours would be piston? I’m just wondering it that’s 3 failures in 300 hours, or 3000 hours or 20,000 hrs?

Were these on twins or singles?

EIWT Weston, Ireland

I’m just wondering it that’s 3 failures in 300 hours, or 3000 hours

Three failures in 3000 piston hours, one for 1000. Quite a few of my instructor colleagues have similar statistics.

Were these on twins or singles?

Twins, luckily.

What sort of maintenance history do you think these had, WN? Did you have them since new, and what were the failures?

  1. was on a C421 that I co-owned at that time and that we had bought with factory overhauled engines that had only 100 hours since overhaul. They had around 1000 hours when the failure occured, and had been maintained “by the book” for our commercial operation. The failure itself was caused by a magneto.
  1. was in a Seneca that had been rebuilt after landing accidents twice already and looked (and still looks) like that. Maintenance is done by the owner who also owns the workshop and the rubber stamp with which he signs the maintenance. I will not say more than that otherwise I may get sued, at least one guy on this forum will know who I am talking about The failure was a broken valve rocker arm that left the valve of one cylinder in the open position thus venting the manifold pressure and reducing engine power to almost idle.
  1. was a C421 again, a very nice one one, but maintained by the same person as engine #2. The failure was a rupture of the exhaust manifold right after takeoff that separated the turbocharger from the engine, thereby instantly creating an over-rich mixture that rich-cuts the engine. Luckily we could make a 180 degree turn and land in the opposite direction, this kind of failure has resulted in several crashes due to fire (there is an auxiliary fuel tank in the rear end of the engine nacelle and with the exhaust ripped off the excess fuel injected in the engine will burn inside the nacelle…)

And then I had an almost-engine failure, avoided by minutes, when an oil line separated from the oil cooler in a C172. By the time we landed, there was not a single drop of oil left in the engine. The oil was pumped over board so quickly that the oil pressure indication was in the green until a few moments before we landed. But this was a really shaken down flying school aeroplane.

EDDS - Stuttgart
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top