1964 Cherokee 180C With Missing Logs Before 2021 — Good Buy or Walk Away?

[Paul Thomas]

Finish your PPL and buy a Mooney; ticket doesn't make sense to buy an airplane for 18 month unless you get a screaming deal -- even more so if you're in a state where you'll have to pay taxes.

 

[bcool]

Not saying it happened to this plane, but it could have been flooded in a hurricane before being revamped.

I was recently tempted by a refurbished Dakota until I read the logs and found it was submerged during a hurricane. While it appears to have been lovingly recovered I just couldn't afford to lose the amount of money they were asking if it started to corrode out in a few years

 

[unsafervguy]

AC_43-9explains how to do this. It takes some work but is pretty straight forward. It should have already been done if I read OP correctly.

here is an portion of the current ad.

(iii) If a main wing spar has been replaced with a serviceable main wing spar (more than zero hours TIS) or the airplane maintenance records are missing or incomplete, the wing history cannot be determined. Perform the eddy current inspection as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

given this statement in AC-43-9C:
b. Other items required by § 91.417(a)(2), such as the current status of life-limited parts,
time since last overhaul, current inspection status, and current list of major alterations, may
present difficult problems. Some items may be easier to reestablish than others, but all are
problems.

and this and the above section of the current ad, i doubt the AD that will establish the life limit will allow TIS of a life limited part to be set by "
the owner/operator may make a notarized statement in the new record describing the loss and establishing the time in service based on the research and the best estimate of time in service."

maybe bell206 can chime in with an some insight, as he may have dealt with this situation with life limited parts before.
I would not be willing to be money that the FAA will allow a spar that does not have a know TIS to remain in service if the put a life limit on them.

 

[Doc Holliday]

So if the logbooks are missing, but the owner has WO’s from previous inspections that included TIS, and the owner knew the TIS of the aircraft before the logs went missing, then what’s the problem of the owner using this to establish a new logbook with a notarized statement of total time?

The statement or the airplane maintenance records are missing or incomplete does not apply here once the new record has been established.

 

[TCABM]

So if the logbooks are missing, but the owner has WO’s from previous inspections that included TIS, and the owner knew the TIS of the aircraft before the logs went missing, then what’s the problem of the owner using this to establish a new logbook with a notarized statement of total time?

The point is the logbooks have a tangible value to the market, especially if the aircraft in question is subject to ADs that may be based on Time In Service.

Missing aircraft logbooks usually result in some amount of diminished value.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The point is the logbooks have a tangible value to the market, especially if the aircraft in question is subject to ADs that may be based on Time In Service.

Missing aircraft logbooks usually result in some amount of diminished value.

Agreed. But the point is also that logs can be recreated using different methods.

The only time this becomes a real problem is when there is no way to establish TIS.

In the OP the way I read it those logs have been established.

 

[Bell206]

I would not be willing to be money that the FAA will allow a spar that does not have a know TIS to remain in service if the put a life limit on them.

While I don’t believe the OP PA28 in this thread falls into the replacement requirement group, I think the issue for those PA28s that do apply is more on the inability to calculate the CSH based on previous 100 hr/annual inspections than calculating TIS. Regardless, given this is an AD, the ability to work out an AMOC would probably get most owners to one of the stated replacement time requirements vs the aircraft turning into a pumpkin solely based on lost records.

 

[Tobias Göller]

Hi Ferflies,

That could become a very expensive airplane in the end.

There are several (very costly) ADs out that you would need to at least check. Plan for at least a week at your A&P to verify them.

Then... the TT is in a range that would be possible - but without the logs it's impossible to prove.

Either, the seller lowers the price dramatically or will pay for the A&P himself to rectify any issue that could be around.

Basically, this aircraft is worth what it's engine is worth in relation to it's running time and age - and not a cent more.

Tobias

Hey everyone,


I’m looking at a 1964 Piper Cherokee 180C as a first airplane to finish my PPL and let my brother train in. Eventually I want to upgrade to a Mooney, so this would be a 1–2 year ownership. The plane looks great, but all airframe logs before 2021 are missing.

Aircraft Details

• TT: 2,930 hrs
• Engine: Lycoming O-360-A3A
• SMOH: ~210 hrs (2021 overhaul by Jewell Aviation)
• Compressions: 78/78/76/77
• Useful load: 1,026 lbs
• Empty weight: 1,424 lbs
• Annual: Fresh Oct 2025
• IFR cert: done
• Interior: 2021 leather
• Paint: 1997 (8.5/10)
• Price: $109,000

Avionics

• Aspen EFD1000 E5
• Avidyne IFD540 GPS/Comm
• Avidyne AMX240 audio panel
• Lynx NGT-9000D ADS-B
• CGR-30 engine monitor
• New metal panel + breakers

Big Issue
Listing says:
“Logs start in 2021… mechanics lost previous logs.”
Only receipts exist for pre-2021.

So the airframe history from 1964–2020 is undocumented.

My Questions:

1. Would you buy a Cherokee 180 with 57 years of missing logs?
2. How much does this hurt resale?
3. Does the strong panel + fresh engine justify the $109k price, or should missing logs drop this into the $70k–$85k range?
4. Anything specific to check on an early 180C if I move forward with a pre-buy?

Appreciate any experienced input. Trying to avoid a bad first purchase.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Then... the TT is in a range that would be possible - but without the logs it's impossible to prove.

How so? If the current owner has a work order from an inspection before the logs went missing, wouldn't that be the basis to re-establish TT? Or if the owner knew what the hobbs meter or tach reading was in relation to TT, couldn't that be used as well?