Comanche Eng Overhauled in 1980 but aircraft in A1 condition

[Rgbeard]

Not intended as a personal attack RyanB:
I always love that one. "You've never met me, but me and my mechanic friend would like to pull a couple of cylinders and look inside"

+100.

Not happening on anything I'm selling.

 

[hindsight2020]

+100.

Not happening on anything I'm selling.

Ditto.

 

[ktup-flyer]

Scope it and have an oil analysis done if it flies regularly. She looks nice

 

[EdFred]

Bunch of shady used care salesmen in here.

 

[Dan Thomas]

You guys are all missing the elephant in the room. Has that engine been ground run by the owner "to keep the oil circulated?" If so, it will definitely be corroded internally. I've seen it too often. Atmospheric moisture is nowhere near the threat that blowby gases in the crankcase are, and those gases contain lots of water that mixes with the oil and forms acids that eat the engine. Flying it gets the temps hot enough long enough to get the water out of there. Large clearances when cold, and the lack of a PCV system, does this. Pulling a jug, or even at least borescoping a cylinder, can warn you off. Pull a mag and see the rust on the gears in there.

40-year-old hoses. Yup. Not safe.

 

[steingar]

Normally I'd say go find another Comanche, Piper made lots. But if the OP is in Australia there might not be so many alternatives. if the OP is thinking about ferrying this aircraft here I'm wondering what he thinks about flying behind that particular engine over blue water.

 

[ahypnoz]

Normally I'd say go find another Comanche, Piper made lots. But if the OP is in Australia there might not be so many alternatives. if the OP is thinking about ferrying this aircraft here I'm wondering what he thinks about flying behind that particular engine over blue water.

I believe after the first mile off the coast, It becomes The Law of the Sea. Civilization ends at the waterline. Beyond that, we all enter the food chain, and not always right at the top.

 

[AeroLudite]

I wouldn’t be so pessimistic.
I’ve dealt with several cases like this and only one had a less than happy outcome.
One was a Comanche 180 just as you describe. Not nearly as nice a plane as OP’s.
Another a Twin that owner had passed away. It had only “sketchy” maintenance before owner passed. It required a good bit of “restoring”, but engines were solid. Another, a Mooney Chaparral that sat in a humid hangar for 17yrs! Three flat tires and a “volcanic” battery w/corrosion. Engine had 100hrs on it. Parked due to excessive oil leakage. Turns out a through bolt never had o-rings installed. Engine was reassembled and has 78/80 compressions.

I’d do an oil change, test run and bore scope. If it looks good, FLY IT!

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Bunch of shady used care salesmen in here.

No, there are not.

. Do you enjoy insulting people?

 

[EdFred]

No, there are not.

. Do you enjoy insulting people?

Sorry, the fact that people won't let something pretty important and substantial be inspected just screams "I'm hiding something."

I've sold 1.5 planes. Whatever they wanted to inspect I let them have at it. I say .5 because they found something I was unaware of that was a major issue that wouldn't be caught with a "you can't open anything up inspection" you guys are espousing. I took the plane back, repaired it, and decided to keep it. If you want to hide something, have at it, but don't be insulted if you are called out for covering something up.

Who does something (covering something up, not allowing it to be checked) like that? Shady used car salesman. Don't like the implication? Don't act like one.

It's like 12 bolts to pull a cylinder and look. Not exactly a full disassembly of the engine.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Sorry, the fact that people won't let something pretty important and substantial be inspected just screams "I'm hiding something."

I've sold 1.5 planes. Whatever they wanted to inspect I let them have at it. I say .5 because they found something I was unaware of that was a major issue that wouldn't be caught with a "you can't open anything up inspection" you guys are espousing. I took the plane back, repaired it, and decided to keep it. If you want to hide something, have at it, but don't be insulted if you are called out for covering something up.

Who does something (covering something up, not allowing it to be checked) like that? Shady used car salesman. Don't like the implication? Don't act like one.

It's like 12 bolts to pull a cylinder and look. Not exactly a full disassembly of the engine.

The fact that you resort to personal attacks reinforces the weakness of your position.

I don’t cheat people and I conduct business with a high level of integrity.

 

[EdFred]

The fact that you resort to personal attacks reinforces the weakness of your position.

I don’t cheat people and I conduct business with a high level of integrity.

And my response to that is anybody can say anything but actions speak louder than words.

If you want to demonstrate that then show me don't tell me.

hypothetically speaking of course since I'm not purchasing an aircraft from you

 

[Tarheelpilot]

And my response to that is anybody can say anything but actions speak louder than words.

If you want to demonstrate that then show me don't tell me.

hypothetically speaking of course since I'm not purchasing an aircraft from you

Asking to pull a jug is unreasonable on a pre-buy. It does not mean I’m a crook. You are entitled to your opinion but that’s all it is…

 

[EdFred]

Asking to pull a jug is unreasonable on a pre-buy. It does not mean I’m a crook. You are entitled to your opinion but that’s all it is…

it takes less time and is less invasive to pull a jug and put it back then it is to pull off every single inspection panel and look at it as if you're doing an annual.

It is completely reasonable. and if you won't even let me have your mechanic pull it while I'm there then that really says something about what is possibly being covered up. especially on an aircraft that has been sitting.

Actions or lack of actions say way more than what you are trying to sell. To seller I would say put your money where your mouth is. if you want I will only think I'm dealing with a shyster.

 

[Bob Noel]

opinions differ

 

[Tarheelpilot]

it takes less time and is less invasive to pull a jug and put it back then it is to pull off every single inspection panel and look at it as if you're doing an annual.

It is completely reasonable. and if you won't even let me have your mechanic pull it while I'm there then that really says something about what is possibly being covered up. especially on an aircraft that has been sitting.

Actions or lack of actions say way more than what you are trying to sell. To seller I would say put your money where your mouth is. if you want I will only think I'm dealing with a shyster.

Keep it up. The name calling is really childish.

 

[EdFred]

I guess Ducks don't quack in your world.

If all of your actions indicate you're a used car salesman it's not name calling. Obviously I struck a nerve, maybe hit a little too close to home.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Obviously I struck a nerve, maybe hit a little too close to home.

Nope. Just calling you out for your behavior. It is possible for you to share your opinion without insulting other people.

 

[EdFred]

Well at least you admit that in world if it doesnt walk act and quack its not a duck. Good to know going forward.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Well at least you admit that in world if it doesnt walk act and quack its not a duck. Good to know going forward.

No. That is not what I said. I ignored your duck quacking insult. I will edit my post to reflect what I was responding to for clarity.

 

[aftCG]

it takes less time and is less invasive to pull a jug and put it back then it is to pull off every single inspection panel and look at it as if you're doing an annual.

It is completely reasonable. and if you won't even let me have your mechanic pull it while I'm there then that really says something about what is possibly being covered up. especially on an aircraft that has been sitting.

Actions or lack of actions say way more than what you are trying to sell. To seller I would say put your money where your mouth is. if you want I will only think I'm dealing with a shyster.

I don't trust strangers to check my tire pressure. I'm sure as hell not allowing them inside my engine.

I sold a plane recently. I represented it fairly and listed it at a good price (probably got 60 calls on it). Hardly a shady deal by a used car salesman. I was flying the plane around myself with my family members which I certainly would not be doing if I even suspected the plane was not 100% airworthy. I was willing to ferry the plane anywhere in the country for gas and a ticket home. Also speaks to my confidence in the plane.

Speaking of all those access covers...
Prior to listing the plane for sale I allowed a guy I met on the internet to come look at it because he was sure it was the plane for him. He claimed to be an A&P and rolled up his sleeves for the inspection. I guess I never asked to see his paperwork but it doesn't matter because as they say, the guy who finishes Med school at the bottom of his class is still called "doctor".
He opened up the plane, said some crabby stuff and then found out he was too portly to even get in the pilot seat. He was also too portly to get the covers under the horizontal stab back in place correctly. That was about the time I read this thread.

Second data point: I had to rebuild a Porsche engine about 6 years ago. Found someone had been inside before as evidenced by the deep scratch in the cylinder wall from one of the rings that wasn't compressed enough to allow it to slide into the bore. Thankfully I found the busted off ring in the sump. You're right, pulling a cylinder off isn't that hard. It's the re-installing that requires skill and apparently some people don't have that.

So no, I don't trust the wrenching skills of a stranger.

My mentor in the airplane buying/selling business insists that if there is any pre-buy involved the plane goes to a reputable 3rd party mechanic who both parties trust. It gets a complete annual at the buyer's expense. IF anything is found during the annual which was not represented fairly by the seller then a negotiation takes place over the repair. Assuming both parties are being genuine that will always work out. It only falls apart if one of them is a squid.

 

[Kristin]

So no, I don't trust the wrenching skills of a stranger.

Yet you expect them to trust that your view of the airworthiness of the aircraft.

My mentor in the airplane buying/selling business insists that if there is any pre-buy involved the plane goes to a reputable 3rd party mechanic who both parties trust. It gets a complete annual at the buyer's expense. IF anything is found during the annual which was not represented fairly by the seller then a negotiation takes place over the repair. Assuming both parties are being genuine that will always work out. It only falls apart if one of them is a squid.

Great deal for the seller, but I would tell a prospective buyer to walk under those conditions.

 

[aftCG]

Yet you expect them to trust that your view of the airworthiness of the aircraft.

Great deal for the seller, but I would tell a prospective buyer to walk under those conditions.

Suit yourself, but why? A potential buyer who is willing to pay for a pre-buy inspection wouldn't want a plane that has a fresh annual by someone they trust? Any A&P I know will tell you the only pre-buy you can trust is a complete annual.

And who pulls a cylinder during an annual unless the compression numbers suck or there is metal in the oil?

If you're a tire kicker, you're not removing my cylinder. If you're a serious buyer and have decided that this is the plane, have agreed on a price and want to make sure there are no hidden faults or misrepresented flaws then an annual should seem quite palatable.

 

[texasclouds]

You could get a look at a T bone by sticking your head up a butchers butt, but wouldn’t you rather take your cows word for it? - Tommy Boy

 

[EdFred]

You could get a look at a T bone by sticking your head up a butchers butt, but wouldn’t you rather take your cows word for it? - Tommy Boy

No, wait it's gotta be your bull...

 

[dtuuri]

I don't trust strangers to check my tire pressure. I'm sure as hell not allowing them inside my engine.

Have the buyer put their money in escrow and give you 30 days to take the deal. Then try like hell to get a better offer.

 

[Kristin]

Suit yourself, but why? A potential buyer who is willing to pay for a pre-buy inspection wouldn't want a plane that has a fresh annual by someone they trust? Any A&P I know will tell you the only pre-buy you can trust is a complete annual.

Frequently, the aircraft offered for sale has had a recent annual inspection, so another is a waste of money on that front. Further, as has been explained by many, often, and in many places, the pre-purchase inspection is, or should be, a completely different inspection that a pre-purchase inspection. I have had no buyers that wanted to buy the seller a fresh annual inspection should something found that is a dealbreaker.

A&P's, as a group, no little about how to do a pre-purchase inspection as they have not been aircraft owners and have no clue what a potential buyer needs to know to find out if the plane is a good deal at the price requested. Mechanics, by and large, are trained to determine whether the aircraft is minimally airworthy at that moment. I don't know many buyers specifically looking for a minimally airworthy aircraft.

And who pulls a cylinder during an annual unless the compression numbers suck or there is metal in the oil?

No one as if it passes the compression check, it can generally be called minimally airworthy. A perspective buyer might want to know if the engine is going to need to be overhauled in the first year, even though low time.

If you're a tire kicker, you're not removing my cylinder. If you're a serious buyer and have decided that this is the plane, have agreed on a price and want to make sure there are no hidden faults or misrepresented flaws then an annual should seem quite palatable.

I gather you are one of the very few buyers that only care that the plane that they buy is minimally airworthy at the moment that they sign the check. Fair enough. To each his/her own.

 

[aftCG]

Frequently, the aircraft offered for sale has had a recent annual inspection, so another is a waste of money on that front. Further, as has been explained by many, often, and in many places, the pre-purchase inspection is, or should be, a completely different inspection that a pre-purchase inspection. I have had no buyers that wanted to buy the seller a fresh annual inspection should something found that is a dealbreaker.

A&P's, as a group, no little about how to do a pre-purchase inspection as they have not been aircraft owners and have no clue what a potential buyer needs to know to find out if the plane is a good deal at the price requested. Mechanics, by and large, are trained to determine whether the aircraft is minimally airworthy at that moment. I don't know many buyers specifically looking for a minimally airworthy aircraft.

I gather you are one of the very few buyers that only care that the plane that they buy is minimally airworthy at the moment that they sign the check. Fair enough. To each his/her own.

Not sure how you deduce that I fly minimally airworthy planes, let alone put my family and friends in one. My IA was a super thorough mechanic and documented his annuals very well. No deferred maintenance. Which is probably why the first people who responded to my ad drove 700 miles overnight to come get it. I represented my plane fairly and disclosed every issue it had (none involved airworthiness). I had nothing to hide.
The buyers clearly saw the value in the plane I was selling and never once suggested pulling a cylinder. They've been flying the crap out of it for about two months now and are happy as pigs in s***.

 

[Bell206]

A&P's, as a group, no little about how to do a pre-purchase inspection as they have not been aircraft owners and have no clue what a potential buyer needs to know to find out if the plane is a good deal at the price requested.

You're the only person I've heard state this and other mechanics who have read your similar posts have questioned the same. I've been both an A&P and an aircraft owner but fail to see what part of my ownership experience allowed me to "prebuy" an aircraft better. If your concern is market price, that is what an appraiser is for. Perhaps it's just your marketing plan to state this for your potential clients. So for the benefit of all what makes being a previous aircraft owner better at performing a pre-purchase inspection than only being an A&P?

I don't know many buyers specifically looking for a minimally airworthy aircraft.

What is a maximum airworthy aircraft?

Regardless, there is zero standard for any pre-purchase/pre-buy inspection. It's whatever the owner requests/willing to pay for or it's what the person providing the pre-buy sells to the prospective buyer. But it's been proven time and time again the best person to perform a pre-buy is the same APIA the owner will use to regularly to maintain their new aircraft. Just read the "my 1st annual" posts on PoA. Each one had a pre-buy performed by someone other than their mechanic. Airworthiness is very subjective to the individual and not every one sees the same issues.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Frequently, the aircraft offered for sale has had a recent annual inspection, so another is a waste of money on that front. Further, as has been explained by many, often, and in many places, the pre-purchase inspection is, or should be, a completely different inspection that a pre-purchase inspection. I have had no buyers that wanted to buy the seller a fresh annual inspection should something found that is a dealbreaker.

A&P's, as a group, no little about how to do a pre-purchase inspection as they have not been aircraft owners and have no clue what a potential buyer needs to know to find out if the plane is a good deal at the price requested. Mechanics, by and large, are trained to determine whether the aircraft is minimally airworthy at that moment. I don't know many buyers specifically looking for a minimally airworthy aircraft.



No one as if it passes the compression check, it can generally be called minimally airworthy. A perspective buyer might want to know if the engine is going to need to be overhauled in the first year, even though low time.



I gather you are one of the very few buyers that only care that the plane that they buy is minimally airworthy at the moment that they sign the check. Fair enough. To each his/her own.

disregard

it’s just not worth it…

 

[EdFred]

Suit yourself, but why? A potential buyer who is willing to pay for a pre-buy inspection wouldn't want a plane that has a fresh annual by someone they trust? Any A&P I know will tell you the only pre-buy you can trust is a complete annual.

And who pulls a cylinder during an annual unless the compression numbers suck or there is metal in the oil?

If you're a tire kicker, you're not removing my cylinder. If you're a serious buyer and have decided that this is the plane, have agreed on a price and want to make sure there are no hidden faults or misrepresented flaws then an annual should seem quite palatable.

If I've flown all the way across the country to look at it twice, I'm pretty sure I'm not a tire kicker. Hell, lets even have your mechanic pull the cylinder.

If I pull the cylinder 2 minutes after the BOS is signed and I find a crankshaft that looks like Swiss cheese are you going to refund me my money, tear up the BOS and wire the money back to me?

 

[Kristin]

Not sure how you deduce that I fly minimally airworthy planes, let alone put my family and friends in one. My IA was a super thorough mechanic and documented his annuals very well. No deferred maintenance. Which is probably why the first people who responded to my ad drove 700 miles overnight to come get it. I represented my plane fairly and disclosed every issue it had (none involved airworthiness). I had nothing to hide.
The buyers clearly saw the value in the plane I was selling and never once suggested pulling a cylinder. They've been flying the crap out of it for about two months now and are happy as pigs in s***.

I said nothing about flying, I said "buying". Two different words with two different meanings. An annual is only a guarantee of minimal airworthiness, if that. Anything more depends on an owner willing to spend the money and a competent mechanic who takes pride in what they are doing.

I commonly find that the seller is not terribly well informed as to the condition of the aircraft. Seller is not exactly objective either.

Removing cylinders only comes up when the plane has been idle for extended periods, raising the issue of internal engine corrosion. If the airplane hasn't been left to rot, there is no reason to be thinking about pulling cylinders.

 

[Kristin]

You're the only person I've heard state this and other mechanics who have read your similar posts have questioned the same. I've been both an A&P and an aircraft owner but fail to see what part of my ownership experience allowed me to "prebuy" an aircraft better. If your concern is market price, that is what an appraiser is for. Perhaps it's just your marketing plan to state this for your potential clients. So for the benefit of all what makes being a previous aircraft owner better at performing a pre-purchase inspection than only being an A&P?

IMX, over the decades, I have seen too many lame pre-purchase inspections, that were basically snapshots of the current condition and provided the buyer no useful information about what he/she might expect in the future. This can be because the mechanic doesn't really understand what an owner needs, or because they don't know the aircraft well enough to predict any future issues or even determine whether AD's have been complied with.

What is a maximum airworthy aircraft?

I don't know! It is your term, not mine.

Regardless, there is zero standard for any pre-purchase/pre-buy inspection. It's whatever the owner requests/willing to pay for or it's what the person providing the pre-buy sells to the prospective buyer. But it's been proven time and time again the best person to perform a pre-buy is the same APIA the owner will use to regularly to maintain their new aircraft. Just read the "my 1st annual" posts on PoA. Each one had a pre-buy performed by someone other than their mechanic. Airworthiness is very subjective to the individual and not every one sees the same issues.

That is my point. There is no standard, so it helps a lot to know what a buyer needs to know. Especially as a first time buyer doesn't usually know themselves.

 

[Bell206]

This can be because the mechanic doesn't really understand what an owner needs, or because they don't know the aircraft well enough to predict any future issues

That is my point. There is no standard, so it helps a lot to know what a buyer needs to know. Especially as a first time buyer doesn't usually know themselves.

Don't dodge the question. What does being an aircraft owner bring to the table when performing an aircraft prebuy? And how does one predict future issues from a prebuy? I'm sure most of PoA would be interested in your answers. Curious. How many years have you actively worked as an A&P? ( not just carried the card around.)

I don't know! It is your term, not mine.

Ha. Priceless. You invent the term "minimally airworthy" and when asked for context using a similar invented term you cry ignorance. So for those here, please define what would be the opposite of your "minimally airworthy" using whatever word you choose whether its "fully airworthy", completely airworthy", etc.

 

[Kristin]

Don't dodge the question. What does being an aircraft owner bring to the table when performing an aircraft prebuy? And how does one predict future issues from a prebuy? I'm sure most of PoA would be interested in your answers.

OH! I didn't realize that you were deputized by all of POA in this matter. I guess I better pay attention. Being an aircraft owner implies, though doesn't guarantee, that one had participated in the buying process, paid for the mistakes in the pre-buy assessment, has paid for the upkeep, and of course, flies it.

As for predicting future issues, it comes to knowing the subject aircraft well enough to know the practical life cycle of some of the high value components. Granted, it is a bit of a judgment call, but better than no information at all.

Curious. How many years have you actively worked as an A&P? ( not just carried the card around.)

A bit over 20, though most of that time, there was also flying and managing the fleet.

Ha. Priceless. You invent the term "minimally airworthy" and when asked for context using a similar invented term you cry ignorance. So for those here, please define what would be the opposite of your "minimally airworthy" using whatever word you choose whether its "fully airworthy", completely airworthy", etc.

Minimum standards for airworthiness are fairly well spelled out by the FAA, though there is some room for interpretation with regard to how much wear is too much.

 

[Bob Noel]

wrt the whole what is a pre-buy debate, this is not a new subject. I vaguely recall discussion of this waaaay long ago. When I was buying an airplane in the early 90's, there was rec.aviation.whatever "wisdom" about what to look for. One key element of this was for the buyer to be very clear about expectations when hiring the A&P or IA (I chose to hire an IA for the pre-buy). A tough job for the person completely new to owning an airplane.

 

[Bell206]

OH! I didn't realize that you were deputized by all of POA in this matter.

Ha. Not deputized. Just drew the short stick and it was my turn to bring up the lack of an answer to the question. We always get a kick when someone only pushes their own narrative but doesn’t answer certain questions when challenged.

Being an aircraft owner implies, though doesn't guarantee, that one had participated in the buying process, paid for the mistakes in the pre-buy assessment, has paid for the upkeep, and of course, flies it.

So in your opinion an owner who is involved in the purchase of an aircraft say once every 10-15 years, who has paid for his pre-buy mistakes, pays for its upkeep, and flies it, brings more experiences to a prebuy process than an A&P who has never owned an aircraft yet sees/maintains 30+ aircraft on average each year, corrects those same pre-buy mistakes for others, and performs actual prebuys more than once every 10-15 years??

As for predicting future issues, it comes to knowing the subject aircraft well enough to know the practical life cycle of some of the high value components.

Curious. Name a few high value component practical life cycles on the aircraft you know the best.

Minimum standards for airworthiness are fairly well spelled out by the FAA, though there is some room for interpretation with regard to how much wear is too much.

I won’t trouble you again to answer what could be your maximum standards for airworthiness as it appears you can’t or won’t answer that question. Regardless, your use of “minimally airworthy” in the context above is a bit disingenuous as there are no varying levels of airworthy. An aircraft is either airworthy or it’s not. This is pretty much been settled by rule and law.

Same with your use of minimal standards for airworthiness above. There is only one standard for airworthy/airworthiness that has been adopted by rule, law, and legal interpretation: 1) the aircraft conforms to its type certificate/ type design and 2) is in a condition for safe operation. There is no reference to min/max conformity or min/max conditions. That same standard further states that in determining the aircraft condition above it’s in many cases a judgement call. I would have thought with your background you would have known that. So the bottomline to all this, minus your "minimal" buzzwords, is that it is your personal opinion not all owners maintain their aircraft to the same level as you maintain your aircraft, but all are still considered airworthy by definition. Correct?

 

[Kristin]

Ha. Not deputized. Just drew the short stick and it was my turn to bring up the lack of an answer to the question. We always get a kick when someone only pushes their own narrative but doesn’t answer certain questions when challenged

You have well demonstrated that most of your questions are rhetorical.

So in your opinion an owner who is involved in the purchase of an aircraft say once every 10-15 years, who has paid for his pre-buy mistakes, pays for its upkeep, and flies it, brings more experiences to a prebuy process than an A&P who has never owned an aircraft yet sees/maintains 30+ aircraft on average each year, corrects those same pre-buy mistakes for others, and performs actual prebuys more than once every 10-15 years??

Is your hypothetical owner an A&P? Other than trying to score points, what are you really asking.

Curious. Name a few high value component practical life cycles on the aircraft you know the best.

Define "high value"?

I won’t trouble you again to answer what could be your maximum standards for airworthiness as it appears you can’t or won’t answer that question. Regardless, your use of “minimally airworthy” in the context above is a bit disingenuous as there are no varying levels of airworthy. An aircraft is either airworthy or it’s not. This is pretty much been settled by rule and law.

I am glad to hear that you are going to make up more terms and ask me to define them.

Same with your use of minimal standards for airworthiness above. There is only one standard for airworthy/airworthiness that has been adopted by rule, law, and legal interpretation: 1) the aircraft conforms to its type certificate/ type design and 2) is in a condition for safe operation. There is no reference to min/max conformity or min/max conditions. That same standard further states that in determining the aircraft condition above it’s in many cases a judgement call. I would have thought with your background you would have known that. So the bottomline to all this, minus your "minimal" buzzwords, is that it is your personal opinion not all owners maintain their aircraft to the same level as you maintain your aircraft, but all are still considered airworthy by definition. Correct?

I am fully familiar with the definition of "airworthy". You have an internal inconsistency is that you admit that condition, i.e. whether something is airworthy is a judgment call. So yes, some aircraft are maintained to a higher standard than others. Do you disagree?

 

[Bell206]

You have well demonstrated that most of your questions are rhetorical.

Not at all. Most of my questions are for you to clarify what you are stating. Which as of yet you have failed to answer several.

Is your hypothetical owner an A&P? Other than trying to score points, what are you really asking.

I don’t know if the owner in your comment below is an A&P. Hence the multiple questions.

A&P's, as a group, no little about how to do a pre-purchase inspection as they have not been aircraft owners and have no clue what a potential buyer needs

I’ve owned a number of aircraft as an A&P and do not see where aircraft ownership adds to my ability as an A&P to perform a better prebuy. And as I mentioned, you are the only person I’ve heard state that ever so I’m curious to know what you mean. And still don’t know.

Define "high value"?

I don’t know…it’s your term below. Just looking for context.

practical life cycle of some of the high value components.

-----

I am glad to hear that you are going to make up more terms and ask me to define them.

Well since you don’t answer the other questions I figured to try your approach. Your use of “minimally airworthy” and “minimum standards” implies there is an upper limit to airworthy and a maximum standard. So define what you consider those upper limits? Simple.

I am fully familiar with the definition of "airworthy". You have an internal inconsistency is that you admit that condition, i.e. whether something is airworthy is a judgment call. So yes, some aircraft are maintained to a higher standard than others. Do you disagree?

In that context, Yes. And that is the point you miss. The standard is type design conformity and condition for flight. A personal judgement, i.e, personal opinion, is not a defined standard in itself. So when you use the term “minimally airworthy” you are simply trying to add credibility to your personal opinion of the aircraft condition because that term does not exist. As I stated the aircraft is either airworthy or not. Period. Whether you agree with how the owner maintains their aircraft is a separate issue from its airworthiness. It is what it is.

 

[EdFred]

If you want an answer to the minimal standards of airworthiness versus an upper standard and this thread happens to be about a Comanche look no further than the tail horn.