Mooney_Driver wrote:
Fact is, the controls exercised by the CAA about such things are way too strict. And it is interesting to see how well they do work together, that implies a lot of trust between the CAA inspectors and the actual people who do the work.
Happily, at least from my POV and with respect to aircraft, this is not Switzerland or anything close. My plane was stored for 30 years in a hangar attached to the owners house… and the owner was US engineering director for an Italian automobile manufacturer. What do you think may have happened in there? 
I’m happy he kept good care of his plane, now mine.
We do have fun. A friend is just finishing up a 1940 or 41 Cub that was up in the rafters of his hangar for a coupe of decades while other projects were completed. He got his A&P in the 70s working for an aircraft manufacturer as a kid and hasn’t touched an aircraft for money since then. Working on planes is a lifestyle for him, not a way to make money. The Cub is going to be a very nice plane, very nicely done. I got such a kick out of finding one of the ailerons signed and dated in hand by the guy who made it 75 years ago in Lock Haven… That was left as-is when the aileron was recovered.
I’m not under the illusion that many people in Europe are going to do the same with old planes (they might not want to regardless of the legalities) but it doesn’t hurt to understand that US built GA light planes were not designed to be maintained in a quasi-military manner, so if you can cut through whatever dictatorial bureaucratic BS may apply they really aren’t so awful to repair and maintain. In fact they are simple.
I think much of the drama you read about aircraft maintenance is just snobbery and promotion of self interest, not engineering or facts. It’s not something to be taken lightly but it’s not rocket science either. I think your buddy Al Mooney would laugh and shake his head if he were alive to see that sort of thing today.
My experience on the third plane is that most sellers are pretty forthcoming with the aircrafts shortcomings. Not once have I seen something turn up that wasn’t already hinted, downright told or obvious. I’m not saying don’t do pre-buy – au contraire, it’s a must – but don’t assume that all sellers are out to stiff you either. Most of them are straight shooters.
Silvaire,
I don’t suggest that things are negligent or any thing like that in the US, just different maybe from what I hear about missing logs, taking a more hands on approach. Here, to keep the paperwork in order and to be on your toes about CAA checking on you is a nuissance at times but it does give you a certain standard where you can in most cases safely assume that if it has got a recent ARC and a recent 100 hrs check it must be in a pretty normal condition. Clearly, also here we have had reports to the contrary, airplanes coming out of such checks and given a clean bill of health which was not appropriate but I’d say it’s rare.
I do agree that much of that kind of drama is probably overstated. Some of the bits and pieces imposed onto us here are not however. Talk about the SID saga in Germany, or the “on condition” controversy in this country right now. For an operator these are major nuissances, the former has led in a drop in desirability for Cessna throughout some countries as if the rest of the fleet might not be subjected to similar Service Bulletins/Instructions any time (even though I think most manufacturers have taken note and will think twice) , for a buyer it does mean that in most cases he can safely assume that a signed off and recently annualled airplane will be in a decent shape.
AdamFrisch wrote:
My experience on the third plane is that most sellers are pretty forthcoming with the aircrafts shortcomings
Well, I’d have to say you’ve started a tad higher than most of us and you continue to climb a ladder. In that segment of the market I might imagine it may be better. With the small airplanes you get those people too but you get a lot of folks who really will excell in talking their plane nice even if it’s not. “IFR equipped” is one of those phrases i tend to groan reading them on Planecheck….
Low prices on the used airplane markets, a chance to attract more pilots to ownership?
Why should it? There is a reason for these low prices; they do not attract pilots! An old plane is a lot of work and lots of expenses, and there is no way out of those expenses. You purchase a 40-50 year old airplane for 20k€ and have to pay 10-20k each year just to keep it operative. This makes no sense for most people. Today we have other alternatives. People would rather get a flashing new composite microlight, with all the newest Garmins at 100k and pay 1k each year to keep it operative.
LeSving wrote:
You purchase a 40-50 year old airplane for 20k€ and have to pay 10-20k each year just to keep it operative
Remove the zeros from the bolded figures and you’d be closer to my maintenance cost numbers, on N-register, to keep it operating. The last big hit I saw was $3,500 or something in 2013 for a prop overhaul. More recently I installed a full flow gauge and sensor ($1000 including the fuel lines and fittings). The really big one is going to be a new paint job sometime in the next three-five years, I’m estimating $15K because I want it perfect. The last two items are of course optional.
My experience on the third plane is that most sellers are pretty forthcoming with the aircrafts shortcomings. Not once have I seen something turn up that wasn’t already hinted, downright told or obvious. I’m not saying don’t do pre-buy – au contraire, it’s a must – but don’t assume that all sellers are out to stiff you either. Most of them are straight shooters.
It’s true that most people are honest when it comes to everyday stuff, but the disposal of significant capital items (car, houses, planes) to a buyer with whom you will never have to deal again tends to bring out the worst in people.
The main manifestation is a less than comprehensive declaration of defects
I would say the majority of those purchases which I have become familiar with involved major shortcomings in the said declaration But in probably all of those cases it was the buyer’s fault – for not getting somebody knowledgeable to check the plane out.
People would rather get a flashing new composite microlight, with all the newest Garmins at 100k and pay 1k each year to keep it operative.
IMHO the 1k is fiction. A plane is a plane; the same things go wrong. Unless it just sits in the hangar all year round…
Mooney_Driver wrote:
But it had an attractive paintjob and with it to the uneducated eye a good ramp presence.
Yes, a decent paint job certainly helps. For me, another thing are the seats. When I see a short back rest and no head rest, I’m out. Of course, with some models you can easily install the latest seats. But it slowly becomes a project. And just like Peter I don’t like aeroplanes with single door, especially when it’s on the wrong side (co-pilot). An emergency exit will do.
Projects definitly are for experienced buyers who know what they want and can do.
I think however for a first time buyer, it is important that he gets a quicker satisfaction by being able to fly immediately without having to worry for a 2-3 month standing time while engine and prop are done.
It depends on the person. I think the major problem would be owner has is finding the right people who can give him a good advice (at least good numbers). With the right people, you can take any route (fly-away, project, damage, etc.). I tend to prefer more run-out engines simply because the more run-out an engine is the more economical it is to just overhaul it, on my terms. That would obviously require commitment to keep the plane for a longer time, otherwise I wouldn’t do an unnecessary overhaul. Having logs from an engine monitor is nice. But this way of thinking probably isn’t compatible with this price range (if you’re shopping in that range because of a budget).
tmo wrote:
what about repaired planes?
Well, you can never assume logbooks are complete and seller admits all incidents. The more people avoid damaged planes, the bigger the incentive to keep it off books or “rewrite history” when you want to sell. As long as the repair was done well, why not, for the right price.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Also the scene is much smaller, therefore it would be quite difficult to hide damage.
When you buy locally. When you buy from abroad, a country where you don’t have contacts, have no experience with how things are done, etc., it’s quite a different story. I generally choose not to trust people (trust is earned, not given away).
Cash works different here.
In the 30k range, cash often doesn’t work. It’s illegal in many countries (typically in the name of fighting money laundering, tax evasion and more recently financing terrorists). It started relatively high, about 15k or so I think. Now it’s some places down to about 1k. Might come down even lower. It’s a stupid trend. One day I might find out I can’t even pay for a tank full of petrol by cash.
“IFR equipped”
Yeah, equipped doesn’t mean approved and there are number of things to be approved for under the “IFR” umbrella.
Peter wrote:
IMHO the 1k is fiction
The 1k is actually an exaggeration. There is not much happening to a composite aircraft with a Rotax, and you can fix everything yourself. What happens however, is people tends to constantly upgrade instruments and systems.
a decent paint job certainly helps
However, and here is me with my “black hat” again, a new paint job is really suspicious! Everybody knows that the cost of a paint job alone will not be recovered on a sale (same with avionics). So why would somebody do a paint job and immediately sell? It’s done to cover up corrosion.
Also the paint job itself might be crap. There was a post here, very early when EuroGA started, giving such a glowing praise to a paint an upholstery shop in Lithuania that David and I were pretty sure it was an advert. The poster was a well known (on a US site) Beech twin owner, based in Denmark IIRC, however, so we let it stand. About a year later he came back with a report that the paint and upholstery were a disaster and the plane was for sale as a “project” i.e. basically worth scrap value only. The posts are still here somewhere. He never posted more details but my impression/recollection was that the paint all came off within months, and the upholstery was done without a fire certificate for the material! It’s very possible – I met a guy c. 3 years ago who bought a brand new Aston Martin DB9 on which the paint peeled off within a year.
The 1k is actually an exaggeration.
I thought so
There is not much happening to a composite aircraft with a Rotax, and you can fix everything yourself.
Only if you are a mechanic or a keen and competent amateur and an avionics specialist. It is very obviously true that the homebuilding community is strongly self selecting on the required type of owner, which is great, but there are cases where a non-specialist ends up with a homebuilt and then they can be in for a whole load of “fun”. Usually, in those cases, they didn’t build it, but bought it. If a builder finds himself in such a situation he tends to abandon the build, and a large % of projects are abandoned and, in most cases, sold as such.
There is no difference between the reliability of a certified plane and a non-certified plane. How can there be? What would be the exact mechanism?
The main cost saving via being uncertified is that you can
) time at nil value)Sorry if some of the above sounds a bit cynical but I have seen cases of all these.
When I look at say an RV or a Lancair I see nothing which will obviously lead to maintenance savings, other than the above.
Can anyone point to specific contrary examples?
Obviously the certified world gets loaded up with all kinds of crap e.g. overpriced parts and arbitrary life limits… but one needs to be totally realistic as to what the exact money saving mechanisms are.
FWIW, in case anybody thinks I am negative towards homebuilts… my dream plane would be a Lancair Evolution, if it could live in the UK and fly pan-Europe VFR and IFR
Peter wrote:
a new paint job is really suspicious
Decent doesn’t necessarily mean new. Point was that, just as with cars, an interesting paint job in good condition can make a big difference in what impression an aeroplane makes.
