Buying plane with damage history

[Dennis M Carleton]

How much damage is too much to consider before you walk away? Looking at an otherwise beautiful plane that has had some damage history.

 

[RyanShort1]

Only you can decide that. My plane has damage history back in 1939, and elsewhere... but it flies fine, and I didn't buy it to flip it. Key thoughts are how long you want to keep it, how long it's been since the repairs (proven vs unproven) price, quality of repairs, etc...

 

[RyanB]

If it was repaired correctly, it wouldn’t really bother me. What kind of damage are we talking?

 

[MrAnderson]

Depends on how the damage was repaired

 

[3393RP]

For me, damage that has been well documented and repaired in accordance with the manufacturer's structural manuals is not a deal breaker. This is particularly true if the damage occurred in the distant past, since then the aircraft has been flown regularly and maintained, and the maintenance records clearly show the aircraft has not had any recurring issues.

With most single engine aircraft in the fleet having been around for decades, it's not unusual to find one with damage history.

With this in mind, don't pay much attention to those that tell you "X" damage reduces the value of the aircraft "Y" percent. If you're interested in buying the aircraft, have it fully evaluated by a competent A&P mechanic. His judgement is more valuable than that of someone on an internet aviation forum.

Making a lowball offer because the word damage has been invoked just exposes you as a tire kicker and will ensure the seller won't react favorably. Perform due diligence, engage the seller respectfully, and you'll have his attention.

I also tend to ignore those that say you'll take a beating when it comes time to sell the aircraft. Reasonable thinking buyers digest the points I have made above and act accordingly, because an aircraft that has been well cared for will attract offers, in spite of the fact it has documented and professionally repaired damage. There is a shortage of good used aircraft, and the market understands damage and its effect on pricing. It's not a death sentence.

Good luck in your search.

 

[N747JB]

I’d much prefer to buy a well maintained airplane in great condition with old damage history, than one with sketchy maintenance and no “known” damage history. My 182 had a wing replaced in 1979, it seems to be holding together pretty good so far. You need to take damage history into account, but current condition is much more important to me.

 

[bnt83]

I've actually given an FAA inspector, working his normal business hours, a ride in a Cessna 152 that had previously been in a salvage yard and declared a total loss.

If its 25 years old or older something has prob happened to it, whether or not the records show it.

 

[WannFly]

Mine had damages … pretty big ones, some 26 years ago. It flies just fine. The important part is if it was repaired properly and flown a lot since. If above 2 conditions are met, I am good with it (duh, I bought one lol)

 

[bflynn]

The only thing I have to add is that if it has damage, it's worth less. Even if the damage was long ago, you're going to take a hit on selling it one day, don't be the sucker that pays full price now.

It might only be a little less, but there are pilots who won't touch an airplane with a damage history, so your customer pool is smaller. Economically, smaller pool = lower price.

 

[AA5Bman]

Damage history is a weird one. Some people will just pass outright on a damage history aircraft, so that reduces the buyer pool right there (something to remember for when you go to sell). But most others weigh the recency of the damage, the quality of the repairs, and the documentation of the damage.

Big requirements for me are A) is the damage still evident, and B) does the plane fly straight and true and hit book numbers (or close), and C) is it transparent and documented?

Two stories: I once went to look at a plane, theoretically no damage history. I did a walk around and from the back, you could see that the wings were not straight/square. Both wings had wrinkles in the outer sections and one wing had more dihedral than the other. It was clear that the plane had been groundlooped and poorly repaired. I now make sure to eyeball planes from a distance to get a sense for whether or not they are basically straight and square.

A second plane I had in contract, also presented as no damage history. It was represented as an Oshkosh award winner (Lindy? I can’t remember), and I researched and confirmed that it had, in fact, won an award at Oshkosh. But then I searched the NTSB database and discovered that the plane had been run off the end of a runway in Alaska, flipped over, and sunk in a marsh. A few years later (no doubt after sitting in a salvage yard) the logbooks contains some sort of milquetoast “left wing repaired” entries. The plane was beautiful - spectacular, even - and in retrospect maybe I should have just gone ahead and bought it, but the situation gave me cold feet and I had to explain to the owner that his plane had been wrecked, repaired, improperly documented, and that I was backing out of the transaction, much to his surprise.

So... I guess the lesson is just proceed carefully, check the logs, and check the NTSB. Trust but verify!

 

[Bell206]

How much damage is too much to consider before you walk away?

As mentioned that is subjective to you and your APIA. But damage history with the proper documentation has never been a deterrent from my point of view. The only ones I’ve recommended not to buy were either repaired improperly or lacked sufficient documentation. Matter of fact there are some models out there that if there isn’t any damage history you would question that fact.

 

[Kevin Eggert]

How much damage is too much to consider before you walk away? Looking at an otherwise beautiful plane that has had some damage history.

As long as you are completely informed and know exactly what you are buying, the extent of previous damage should not necessarily make you walk away. To me, damage history means very little if the damage was fully and properly repaired. If the parts or areas that were damaged were completely replaced by new parts and components you could have a situation where the plane is in better shape after the repair than it was before the damage was done. I would say, if an inspection by a trained knowledgable A&P doesn't show any current damage, residual effects of past damage, or any other areas of concern, the history of such damage is nothing more than a footnote in the logbooks. I will say that if you plan to resell the plane, not all buyers have the same philosophy and will treat damage history as a black mark on the plane that reduces its value. If you plan to keep the plane long-term, however, you can find some good deals on previously damaged and repaired aircraft.

 

[TheFB]

I’ve bought two planes and both had some damage history. With the age of most the planes we are buying, zero damage history almost makes me more suspicious than documented damage and repair that have been in operation since. A good prebuy and document inspection should calm you in these instances.

 

[Maxnr]

I bought two. first was a Luscombe that landed hard and nosed over. Put it on a trailer and repaired and restored over year and half. Logs showed three other previous minor "dings". She was a sweetheart. Bought a Beechcraft 23 that had a previous wheelbarrow/ground loop and had some sheet metal work aft fuselage. She was a no problem plane until a hurricane came through and was totaled in her hangar.

Back when I was a military pilot, I had a brief experience with a Huey that was shot down, sat in salt water for a couple of days then shipped to overhaul in Corpus Christi. Logged 45 minutes in it before all the problems came to light. The engine deck/firewall honeycomb structure de-laminated. Two of the tail boom attachment brackets were found to be cracked. There are four total. The transponder was inop. Pulled the control head from the rack and found an AK-47 bullet rattling around inside. There was mud remaining in the lower fuselage. Some one at the O/H depot apparently just gave it a "blessing" from a distance. If this was on the market, no one would touch it.

Latter in civilian aviation I flew it about 3'000 hrs. I pretty much knew it history. It was a Sikorsky 76A, S/N "2". It was ditched in salt water and overturned. (All 12 occupants were OK) It sat in a field for over a year while being cannabalized for parts. Then pulled into the hangar for major refurb. I was the first assigned to it and took off. The engines woke up a nest of yellow jackets living in the avionics bay in the nose. As they filled the cockpit, asked the other pilot what should we do? He shrugged. We decided to continue the climb to 6'000 or 8'000 and that put them to sleep. Made a fast descent and left the A/C soon as we could. Handed the log to maint with a write up for hornets.

The old girl was a nice flying bird. Except for electrical gripes. Avoid Kaptron wiring and ANY immersion in sea water. I was assigned a different A/C years latter and was present when old No. 2 was loaded on a flatbed and trucked off. It had several open write ups in the log. One of which was "Oil leaking from overhead cabin PA speakers."

 

[Brad W]

just thinking generally....if the paint is still drying on the repair, I'd be giving it serious consideration and a very close look IF I decided to even consider it
Otherwise, the only thing that would probably red flag it for me was indications of anything out of rig.... trimming problems, rigging issues, etc...
and it would cause me to look for subtle or not so subtle signs.....for example if there was some sort of tailcone damage... and then there was an unusually high amount of tailwheel issues in the history following the repair

 

[Dennis M Carleton]

Thank you all so much. Your insights have been very helpful. Damage to the aircraft was 7 years ago when the plane was taxied into a hangar. Had front end damage, collapsed nose wheel, prop destroyed and some damage to wing tip. But it looks great now and flies regularly.

 

[Ed Haywood]

If properly repaired, that wouldn't be a deal breaker IMO. Make sure the engine was torn down and IRAN by a reputable shop.

 

[Initial Fix]

It all comes down to how well the repair was done and how long ago. There are many crap repairs out there and having a mechanic you trust give it a thorough look is the only way you can have confidence.

 

[AlphaMike]

Damage history that was properly repaired and documented isn’t much of an issue for me. For me, missing logs is a walk away issue. Who knows why those are missing? Random fire? Seriously, just 4 years of books burned in some fire but all else is good? Not buying that!

 

[Brad W]

Damage history that was properly repaired and documented isn’t much of an issue for me. ....

I was thinking more about this thread..... this being a common thought, and one I share.....
BUT
the PROPER part of properly repaired is the really hard thing to determine.....maybe even impossible in a practical sense....

 

[Bell206]

the PROPER part of properly repaired is the really hard thing to determine.....maybe even impossible in a practical sense....

Not at all. Following the existing guidance, which ever guidance you follow, is the path that puts the "proper" in properly. Not following any existing guidance is what leads to issues. The problem is the subjective side of which guidance a person wishes to follow.

 

[Brad W]

but how can you really know, based on log book entries...that the mech that made the repairs followed the "guidance"....or "best practices"...or even good sense?

 

[Bell206]

but how can you really know, based on log book entries...that the mech that made the repairs followed the "guidance"....or "best practices"...or even good sense?

Its what you learn as an AP. Can it be 100% determined from just logbook entries? No. But those entries along with a check of the aircraft will determine if the guidance was followed as most of the existing guidance is spelled out in black and white. What becomes very evident is when the guidance is not followed. But in my experience if the logbook entries are above board then the actual work is also. That is unless that individual is out to break the rules from the get-go and BSs the whole project. But even that can be determined with a good physical check. My final determining act on accepting a repair or alteration is if I would sign off the same work.

 

[Dana]

Most of the planes I've owned I bought with damage history. It never worried me.

 

[3393RP]

The only thing I have to add is that if it has damage, it's worth less. Even if the damage was long ago, you're going to take a hit on selling it one day, don't be the sucker that pays full price now.

It might only be a little less, but there are pilots who won't touch an airplane with a damage history, so your customer pool is smaller. Economically, smaller pool = lower price.

This isn't necessarily true. If the damage and repair meet the criteria I set forth above in post #5 (link below), buyers that automatically disqualify these aircraft without any investigation are ignoring the realities of the GA fleet in 2021.

Dismissing the hypothetical aircraft that has nice paint and interior, a mid time engine, a suite of modern avionics, and logbooks that fully document and describe its service history because a hangar door closed on the left horizontal stabilizer, the rudder, and vertical stabilizer twenty years ago makes no sense at all to me.

That supposed reduced number of potential buyers who won't look at a plane that has damage history wouldn't trouble me if it was my properly repaired aircraft that was offered for sale.




https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...lane-with-damage-history.134869/#post-3161206

 

[bflynn]

This isn't necessarily true.

what isn’t true? That some pilots won’t touch a plane with damage history? Or that a smaller pool of potential buyers means a lower price? The first is just the way it is, the second is a law of economics.

There’s always the chance that someone doesn’t care and is willing to pay what you’re asking, but it’s also true that maybe someone else did care and would have been willing to pay more. Any individual sale can beat the odds, but long term an airplane with significant damage history has lower value

I agree, the older the damage and the better the proof of a good repair, the less this matters, especially with minor damage, even a gear up landing. But I’d be hard pressed to disregard a complete firewall forward rebuild as immaterial and so will a lot of people.

 

[Salty]

what isn’t true? That some pilots won’t touch a plane with damage history? Or that a smaller pool of potential buyers means a lower price? The first is just the way it is, the second is a law of economics.

There’s always the chance that someone doesn’t care and is willing to pay what you’re asking, but it’s also true that maybe someone else did care and would have been willing to pay more. Any individual sale can beat the odds, but long term an airplane with significant damage history has lower value

I agree, the older the damage and the better the proof of a good repair, the less this matters, especially with minor damage, even a gear up landing. But I’d be hard pressed to disregard a complete firewall forward rebuild as immaterial and so will a lot of people.

I think his point was that there are 60 year old planes that have documented damage and 60 year old planes that have undocumented damage, but very, very few that have never had damage. Weeding out unreasonable, uneducated buyers is only a bad thing when you’re selling a lemon, in which case you need that larger pool of buyers.

 

[Magman]

There are folks that do not want anything in their logs that identify

even routine minor repairs.

It’s unrealistic to believe an aircraft will go 10 years or 1000 hrs with no

maintenance.

Finding evidence of repairs with no supporting documentation is more of a

concern than “ history” .

 

[MooneyDriver78]

There’s different levels of damage, a little hangar rash that required new sheet metal or control surface that happened 500 hours ago, or a gear collapse that happened 5 hours ago. The former I wouldn’t care about, the latter would at least need to be carefully checked out by an expert in type.
Personally I would be much more concerned about corrosion and if a plane has tied down outside.
As long as the damage did not result from NTSB documented event, I would expect it to be listed as NDH.

 

[Gary Ward]

How much damage is too much to consider before you walk away? Looking at an otherwise beautiful plane that has had some damage history.

My plane was in a tornado in 1990, it had 200 hrs on it. It was totaled by the insurance company. It was sitting at the same airport that I keep it at today tied down under a open roof.

My buddy bought it from the insurance company and had it rebuilt.

I first flew it for him since he lost his medical in 2016, it had 1412 hrs on it when I started flying it. After 6 months of flying it and one annual inspection that I did all the work assisted by the same AP/IA who has done work on it since 1997. I treated it as a pre buy inspection. I bought it.

I have flown it 750 hrs since buying it. It fly's straight and true. I have updated everything on it front to back.
I fly it 4-5 days a week, my record is 23 days in a row fall 2020.

My friend and I fly our planes all over together just about every week. I love to fly even if it is nowhere special.

 

[AA5Bman]

Wow, it’s hard to imagine those are the same aircraft. It seems like there no way that rebuild makes financial sense, no? I mean, nothing in aviation makes financial sense, but that seems like more labor hours than the plane could possibly be worth?

 

[Bell206]

FWIW: I've found how a prospective owner views an aircraft's damage history is directly related to their knowledge of how the repair process works. The more they know the less the damage (or type of damage) matters to them. Walking away from a prospective aircraft simply because it has damage, especially in todays market, will lead to missing out on some good aircraft. But even within those owners that accept damage history some will not touch an aircraft that had been involved in an accident vs say weather damage. Back when I would pick up a project or two I stopped buying accident caused projects simply because of the superstitious nature of some aircraft owners. After I went weather incident only aircraft never had a problem selling the end result if I didn't part it out. The only issue I had was weeding out the "it has damage" crowd looking for a damage discount which I never gave. In my opinion, a properly repaired aircraft is equal to or better than the original configuration which also follows the existing guidance when performing the repairs. So technically it should be labeled as aircraft with repair history as the damage was fixed.

 

[Gary Ward]

Wow, it’s hard to imagine those are the same aircraft. It seems like there no way that rebuild makes financial sense, no? I mean, nothing in aviation makes financial sense, but that seems like more labor hours than the plane could possibly be worth?

I think you are right and the current airport manager who was there also in 1990 agrees with you.

My late buddy was a racer and re builder. Owned a dragstrip, speedshop and machine shop. Not saying it best, but all his life he bought broken stuff and fixed it to use in his businesses. I knew him from drag racing. Watched him land his planes on his dragstrip.

The airport manager today is was there in 1990. He said to me "there is only one person in the world that would rebuild that plane" He knew my buddy long before I knew him. My friend died 6 months after I bought the plane from him, he was 84.
Here I am taxing, a low time new pilot in a unknown 172 that has been sitting for years. Taking off for the first time in it minutes before the dragstrip was going to open on a Saturday afternoon. My buddy was in a big hurry to get me gone with his plane since they were ready to use the strip. He rented a T hangar at nearby airport so we could keep the plane there so I could fly it for him. Awesome deal huh...

In it's new home after my first flight in it. The vacuum pump went out first flight. The deal was I maintain it and he let's me fly it which I was very happy with. So his IA and I were under the cowl as soon as I got it here. lol