A nice 172 for under $40K....

Tom-D said:
When flying any home built I always have that nagging thought " what did he Mess up, what did he improve upon?" ever creak, groan becomes "WHAT WAS THAT"
Click to expand...

How's that any different than hopping in a stranger's 210 you don't know the MX history of?

I think I've pointed out before that no one in their right mind would just pick up a Certificated aircraft sight-unseen without a pre-buy inspection after seeing a perfect logbook. In theory, FAA culls the bad mechanics who lie in logbooks from the rolls -- but I see no mechanism for that. Do they ask for the results of every pre-buy as an audit of the former mechanic when discrepancies are found by the next mechanic?

All those signatures by "qualified" mechanics only mean something if you or your friends know that mechanic personally -- and you're still crazy of you don't hire your own trusted mechanic to inspect their work.

I wouldn't hop in a Certified aircraft with a perfect logbook and ferry it halfway across the country with no inspection, would you? Every creak and groan would make me think, "Was the former owner's mechanic pencil-whipping things?"

Isn't a build log with photos required anyway? If you want to know what was "improved" upon, it's in that book isn't it?

How long can a pencil-whipping mechanic sign logbooks for cash, before they're caught?
 
Tom-D said:
When flying any home built I always have that nagging thought " what did he Mess up, what did he improve upon?" ever creak, groan becomes "WHAT WAS THAT"
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how your ride jitters relate to a puchase. Pre-purchase jitters I can understand. However, in my humble opinion, once an airplane has acquired 200 or more flight hours, any obvious construction flaws can be ruled out. For less than obvious problems, I'm not sure what you believe prohibits the purchaser from doing a thorough exam that compares the airplane against the design plans and correcting whatever can be corrected?

Arguing against used homebuilts because they are more expensive than used certified aircraft 3 times older is mildly amusing and barely tolerable. One has to suspend belief and assume airframes don't age.

Now when used homebults a dozen years old that are at least a third faster (getting at least fifty percent better mileage) than certified used aircraft three times as old have comparable asking prices, the argument against homebuilts boils down to "things that go bump in the plane?"
 
In my experience, people rarely fill the rear seats in a four place airplane. Two seats, plus baggage area is typically fine for most missions. I'd take an RV-6, 7, 8 over a 172 any day.
 
denverpilot said:
How's that any different than hopping in a stranger's 210 you don't know the MX history of?

I think I've pointed out before that no one in their right mind would just pick up a Certificated aircraft sight-unseen without a pre-buy inspection after seeing a perfect logbook. In theory, FAA culls the bad mechanics who lie in logbooks from the rolls -- but I see no mechanism for that. Do they ask for the results of every pre-buy as an audit of the former mechanic when discrepancies are found by the next mechanic?

All those signatures by "qualified" mechanics only mean something if you or your friends know that mechanic personally -- and you're still crazy of you don't hire your own trusted mechanic to inspect their work.

I wouldn't hop in a Certified aircraft with a perfect logbook and ferry it halfway across the country with no inspection, would you? Every creak and groan would make me think, "Was the former owner's mechanic pencil-whipping things?"

Isn't a build log with photos required anyway? If you want to know what was "improved" upon, it's in that book isn't it?

How long can a pencil-whipping mechanic sign logbooks for cash, before they're caught?
Click to expand...
Your thoughts in this reply leads me to believe you have no clue about CRS re-training requirements. or the association of A&P-IA and their PMI at FSDO.

A couple years ago the mechanic at a flying club near here missed the Bendix impulse coupling AD on a PA-28, the aircraft sold, the following month the 3 A&Ps that had completed 100 hours and annuals on the Piper got letters stating their Privileges had been suspended.

That is how easy the certificate goes away, every A&P I know of thinks more of their certificate than what you suggested above.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I'm not sure how your ride jitters relate to a puchase. Pre-purchase jitters I can understand. However, in my humble opinion, once an airplane has acquired 200 or more flight hours, any obvious construction flaws can be ruled out. For less than obvious problems, I'm not sure what you believe prohibits the purchaser from doing a thorough exam that compares the airplane against the design plans and correcting whatever can be corrected?

Arguing against used homebuilts because they are more expensive than used certified aircraft 3 times older is mildly amusing and barely tolerable. One has to suspend belief and assume airframes don't age.

Now when used homebults a dozen years old that are at least a third faster (getting at least fifty percent better mileage) than certified used aircraft three times as old have comparable asking prices, the argument against homebuilts boils down to "things that go bump in the plane?"
Click to expand...

I am asked to do compliance inspections on EXP aircraft, on several occasions after completing part of the inspection I have refused to sign off the aircraft. With out in process inspections during the assembly the craftsmanship is many times lacking.

But many times the craftsmanship is far superior to any production built aircraft, plus the fact that many home built use processes that can't be bought, at common man's prices.
 
Some do it until they die, and then the airplane owner learns of it only after a former employee calls the FAA to 'fess up. Next time you're in Dallas I'll show you the $100,000 results.

denverpilot said:
How's that any different than hopping in a stranger's 210 you don't know the MX history of?

I think I've pointed out before that no one in their right mind would just pick up a Certificated aircraft sight-unseen without a pre-buy inspection after seeing a perfect logbook. In theory, FAA culls the bad mechanics who lie in logbooks from the rolls -- but I see no mechanism for that. Do they ask for the results of every pre-buy as an audit of the former mechanic when discrepancies are found by the next mechanic?

All those signatures by "qualified" mechanics only mean something if you or your friends know that mechanic personally -- and you're still crazy of you don't hire your own trusted mechanic to inspect their work.

I wouldn't hop in a Certified aircraft with a perfect logbook and ferry it halfway across the country with no inspection, would you? Every creak and groan would make me think, "Was the former owner's mechanic pencil-whipping things?"

Isn't a build log with photos required anyway? If you want to know what was "improved" upon, it's in that book isn't it?

How long can a pencil-whipping mechanic sign logbooks for cash, before they're caught?
Click to expand...
 
LDJones said:
In 2008 they'd sold around 50,000 430/530 radios and there were about 228,000 GA aircraft. Since many 430/530 installs included a pair of them it's probably somewhere south of 15-20% of the fleet that might have one, so having one would still be a value-add, but doubtful you'd ding a plane for not having one. And It's still north of $6K to add one.
Click to expand...

In this market you don't take a price hit, you take a sellability hit. Everybody wants a WAAS GPS and nobody wants to pay for one so they all look for a plane with it installed. The value hit comes in the offering price you have to use to get someone to call if you don't have one.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Your thoughts in this reply leads me to believe you have no clue about CRS re-training requirements. or the association of A&P-IA and their PMI at FSDO.

A couple years ago the mechanic at a flying club near here missed the Bendix impulse coupling AD on a PA-28, the aircraft sold, the following month the 3 A&Ps that had completed 100 hours and annuals on the Piper got letters stating their Privileges had been suspended.

That is how easy the certificate goes away, every A&P I know of thinks more of their certificate than what you suggested above.
Click to expand...

That's good to hear. I've seen stuff I wouldn't fly in, signed-off by people.

( I didn't know Cranial Rectal Syndrome was part of re-training though!!! :yikes: )
 
denverpilot said:
I've seen stuff I wouldn't fly in, signed-off by people.
)
Click to expand...

If it is airworthy, it is airworthy, your willingness to fly in it is not a requirement.
 
Anthony said:
In my experience, people rarely fill the rear seats in a four place airplane. Two seats, plus baggage area is typically fine for most missions. I'd take an RV-6, 7, 8 over a 172 any day.
Click to expand...

I have two kids. If I owned an airplane, I'd want to use it to travel with my family.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to fly an RV-[678]. But I can't imagine leaving my kids behind...
 
Henning said:
Most people don't know how little it takes to be airworthy.
Click to expand...

Nor do they understand the difference between cosmetics and condition.

Nor do they understand that the definition of airworthiness is in many cases totally dependent on the eye of the beholder. If you think differently, ask four different shops about a specific item (like brakes worn down to "almost minimum" tolerances.
 
jason said:
I have two kids. If I owned an airplane, I'd want to use it to travel with my family.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to fly an RV-[678]. But I can't imagine leaving my kids behind...
Click to expand...


I didn't see that previously. Yeah, you need the back seats. Make sure the plane can actually haul them as many four seat aircraft are not four place aircraft, depending on weights, fuel, etc.

RV-10 is four place, but will cost you a lot more than $40K. Tigers are in the $50K+ range for good ones.
 
wabower said:
Nor do they understand the difference between cosmetics and condition.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can echo that. I flew 2 newbies this weekend in the beater warrior II (1 is real nice, one is good, one sucks and they all rent for the same price) and they were a little sketched out by the airplane.

Paint is faded, struts are a bit weepy, tires are almost bald but still ok, door is difficult to shut, the interior plastic is all cracked and some of the overhead air duct is gone from pilots heads impacting it during turbulence, the panel is missing the DME and ADF is inop, the panel plastic is all cracked, the storm window leaks air.. I could go on.

However the thing is airworthy. I loaded it up to within 10 pounds of gross and it flew us nicely around NC.
 
dell30rb said:
Paint is faded, struts are a bit weepy, tires are almost bald but still ok, door is difficult to shut, the interior plastic is all cracked and some of the overhead air duct is gone from pilots heads impacting it during turbulence, the panel is missing the DME and ADF is inop, the panel plastic is all cracked, the storm window leaks air.. I could go on.

However the thing is airworthy. I loaded it up to within 10 pounds of gross and it flew us nicely around NC.
Click to expand...
You sure? Is it airworthy because it flew fine or because you've ripped the entire thing apart and inspected everything? Some of those things are "sketchy" at best. Just my opinion.
 
jesse said:
You sure? Is it airworthy because it flew fine or because you've ripped the entire thing apart and inspected everything? Some of those things are "sketchy" at best. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

When doing an annual, cosmetic and material condition and airworthiness is pretty much my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
You and a lot of folks here need to watch this :

http://www.slideshare.net/guest3dac39/airworthiness
Click to expand...

Slides 14 and 15 are of import here, when looking at experimental aircraft inspections.

Specifically, to be signed off as airworthy, a CERTIFIED PRODUCTION AIRCRAFT must have an annual inspection stating it's in an airworthy condition. The two conditions for airworthiness? 1) Conforms to original type design / certificate and any subsequent STCs, and 2) is in a Condition for safe operation (general wear and tear inspection).

Since an amateur built aircraft does not have a type certificate to conform to, it can't have an "annual inspection", per the definition of an Annual Inspection. So, while the scope of the inspection may seem to parallel the annual inspection, it is correctly termed a "condition" inspection, as it complies with only item #2 in the list above.

For more on this, see the "Ask the DAR" article by Mel Asberry on page 64 of the November 2011 issue of the magazine Kitplanes.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Slides 14 and 15 are of import here, when looking at experimental aircraft inspections.

Specifically, to be signed off as airworthy, a CERTIFIED PRODUCTION AIRCRAFT must have an annual inspection stating it's in an airworthy condition. The two conditions for airworthiness? 1) Conforms to original type design / certificate and any subsequent STCs, and 2) is in a Condition for safe operation (general wear and tear inspection).

Since an amateur built aircraft does not have a type certificate to conform to, it can't have an "annual inspection", per the definition of an Annual Inspection. So, while the scope of the inspection may seem to parallel the annual inspection, it is correctly termed a "condition" inspection, as it complies with only item #2 in the list above.

For more on this, see the "Ask the DAR" article by Mel Asberry on page 64 of the November 2011 issue of the magazine Kitplanes.
Click to expand...

Have you read any of the new letters of limitations on newly certified A/HB aircraft. ?

These letters state that the "Compliance inspection" comply with FAR 43-D, (scope and detail of an annual/100 hour)
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Have you read any of the new letters of limitations on newly certified A/HB aircraft. ?

These letters state that the "Compliance inspection" comply with FAR 43-D, (scope and detail of an annual/100 hour)
Click to expand...

I wasn't questioning the scope of the compliance inspection. Just noting why it's not referred to by the same term as is used with production certified aircraft, even though the scope of the inspection should cover the same items.

Specifically, the 'return to service' notation in the logs does NOT include the statement "found to be in an airworthy condition", but rather (per the AC):

"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected on (insert date) in accordance with the scope and detail of appendix D of Part 43 and found to be in a condition for safe operation."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top