Spot the problem with this TB20 for sale

@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.

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 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 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

• The Aircraft had a Gear up in Friedrichsafen in 2012 and was suitably repaired including Overhauled Prop & Shock Load Tested Engine
• The Propellor & Mags have just both just been overhauled as they are now 6 years old…!
  Sorry it’s not more exciting than that……

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 have said this in multiple threads of the same “what about this aeroplane” theme, that talking about a specific aeroplane is not going to help the cause of selling it. I’d said it, I think, in the thread that was started about another TB20 that was for sale. The person looking in/starting the thread has no investment and the seller has all the downside. In a rare case someone might pop their head up and praise the aeroplane

It’s just another frustration on the road to selling an aeroplane.

Dear Peter (Bill, Mooney_Driver, AnthonyQ and anyone else who has read this forum)
I am the owner of the TB20 (G-BZPI) you write about and I am both surprised and disappointed to read the kind of dialogue that has been posted on this forum about my aeroplane. I absolutely agree that we all have to look after and support each other as a community and this forum should be exactly the place for doing just that. However, I would suggest that people really need to get their facts correct before speculating with spurious and potentially damaging information based on nothing factual whatsoever. I have owned this aircraft for 5 years and it is perfect; to suggest that anything has been done incorrectly or inappropriately is questioning my integrity and the integrity of the maintenance operation that has looked after the aircraft for the past 18 years. I would in no way attempt to hide a gear up landing and the shock load test and subsequent overhaul is fully documented, together with the new prop and mag etc. in the log books and maintenance record. Who would buy an aeroplane without looking at that? It is sadly a somewhat jaundiced view to suggest we are all crooks and scammers – I for one certainly am not! It is disappointing that you did not take the time to do adequate research to establish the facts before posting the comments that you did. If you need me to, when I get the time, I will post a link to the relevant details on here to put the record straight. Thank you.

It’s the [un-necessary] new parts that make an overhaul pricey, otherwise stripping a mag down to bits and building it back up is less than 2 hours for a shop that does this all day long.