I have just been made aware of this thread discussing our listing for a TB20
Your own Forum Guidelines state:
“Don’t make things up.
We want our forums to be thought of as reliable, so we’d like to avoid speculation or story-telling from taking hold and becoming a half-truth.”
I’m not sure why you feel it necessary to post speculation about an aircraft based upon the few basic outline details in our listing ?
If you wanted more information, then we would gladly supply it on demand if of course you are interested in buying it…
I’m a a complete loss to how you jumped the conclusion that the Mags & prop were overhauled because of an undocumented prop strike…!
But why let the facts get in the way of a good story.
FACTS
Had you taken the time or trouble to investigate the FACTS further you’d be pleasantly surprised to hear that the aircraft is bona fide.
You’ll also be glad to hear that the aircraft is now sold and the buyer is delighted with his new aircraft.
I appreciate the free advertising, next time could we try to make it a bit more positive? 
I will admit, SMOH being since magneto overhaul was a new one for me.
The aircraft can be great or terrible, but as with all purchasing, if you get the feeling something something is not being made perfectly clear from the start you do tend to wonder.
Whilst a gear up wouldn’t necessarily put me off at the right price, failing to state it clearly on an advert probably would.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the views of PhilW as an aircraft repair organisation I know the hoops we have to jump through to carry out and certify a repaired aircraft as fit to fly, it is a highly regulated industry and the assumption should be that the aircraft has been properly repaired and fit for flight.
Of course any buyer needs to do the due diligence but I stand by my original post on the subject that “ damage history is not a reason to not buy an aircraft just a reason to carefully inspect it”.
It’s simply not ethical to assume an aircraft is unfit to fly just because it has been involved in an incident.
I started the thread after being contacted by someone who was looking at it and who asked for my view. With this person’s consent (he was no longer in the market for it) I then started this thread, in the hope that it would be educational.
The original advert, duly saved in post #1, doesn’t make sense in some areas, and that is what led to the speculation on whether the engine was shock load inspected etc. PhilW (I am assuming he is responsible for the advert – maybe not? – we had two apparently identical people sign up on the same day and the 2nd one was not admin approved) doesn’t seem to understand this. If you are going to publicly advertise some item, to a supposedly intelligent audience, you need to get it right. WilliamF (an aircraft broker; he should know) spotted it in post #4
The inescapable conclusion which a careful reader would come to is that something happened which caused a prop to be overhauled, and only the magneto was done on the engine. As the saying goes, No Sh1t Sherlock!
It is no use putting up a poor advert and then moaning when it comes up on a forum where people discuss the aircraft. It is like going for a flight with someone else’s bird and moaning that some plane spotter took a pic of the plane showing the two of you in there 
Many planes for sale are good, many are complete lemons (with a fair few “maintenance fraud cases” thrown in), and there is a whole spectrum in between. So many buyers end up with less than they expected (I have hundreds if not thousands of emails on this) that this makes a very good discussion topic for EuroGA, which was set up to create an informative site for European GA.
@PhilW and @blueskybob
Unfortunately a lot of adds can ruin chances of a perfectly good airplane in todays market. Today we still very much have a buyers market and people want to get the best deal for their money, which is fair enough. However, it also means, they will ask around and get opinions. In forums, people will scrutinize adds without any mercy at all.
Having been in this business myself many moons ago, I even then learnt how important it is to put the information so that it is clear. Today, with many additional regulatory issues, this is even more important than before.
I think what prompted the whole discussion were the Airplane Time State information you gave.
Engine:
Lycoming IO-540-C4D5D, 250 hp, 6 Cylinder.
Fuel Injected, Normally Aspirated.
2 hours since ‘timed’ Mag overhaul
Prop:
Hartzell, HC-C2YK-1BF/F8477-4, 3-blade Constant Speed Propeller
2 hours since ‘timed’ prop overhaul
Now, time state which anyone can undestand and work with would be: Total Time since new, Total time since last overhaul, Date of last overhaul, (and possibly TBO as it makes calculating easier). This is basically what is needed to see at one glance where engine or prop are standing. Then add additional information as necessary.
As an example:
TTSN: 3400hrs, TSOH: 1200hrs done in 2012, (TBO2400hrs). Shockload Inspection performed 2014 at TT3250 after gear up landing/Prop strike.
or: TTSN 900 hrs, installed 2012 for e.g. a new prop or engine.
You can then add stuff like Magnetoes overhauled (when, how many hours ago), new hoses, e.t.c. as they give additional information to the buyer what he will have to expect before he ever sees the logs.
What I personally would avoid (not in your add but generally) is a mention of “£ 40’000 spent on maintenance in the last 2 years, no expense spared” which some sellers think will tell a buyer they have been generous with their maintenance, but which will make buyers shy of future cost… “If that guy spent that much, then what will I have to spend???” even if that is not very rational.
Damage history should include events like a gear up with a simple note: Gear Up landing in 2014, Shock load performed and new prop installed, repaired (at “maintenance organisation”). You are right that generally this kind of thing is irrelevant particularly if the repair has been done a long time ago, but there will be buyers who will react quite heftily if there is no mention of it and then they find it in the logs at pre-buy.
That way, discussions like this will not even trigger and it makes it much easier for those of us who want to help inexperienced buyers.
In the case of this airplane I certainly did not think it was a “lemmon” or the seller a crook. That is actually pretty rare. But what is not are sellers who are blissfully unaware of what the market demands these days in terms of information and how adds should look like. Yours is actually quite complete, which I would expect from a broker, apart from the confusing time state.
Also, many perspective buyers will ignore adds without an asking price.
I am happy to hear that the plane found a new owner.
