Buying another plane: Engine time ???

rbhankins001

rbhankins001

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
126
Display Name
Display name:
Rob
Well I'm still looking for another plane and have narrowed it down quite a bit. Although the budget allows for more plane, the insurance companies won't', and that's probably a good thing.

So I'm going with one of the following: Cherokee 140 (preferably w 160 hp upgrade), Cherokee 180 or C172 (most likely not a 180 hp 172). These are the only planes I'm considering.

I will be using it to "goof off" and fly to my condo in FL (200 miles one way).

I would like faster, etc but it's not gonna happen til I build some time.

So I'm very familiar with performance (or lack thereof lol) but what should I be looking for re: engine time?

I find mid-time engines with the SMOH 30 yrs ago a little scary.

So what does the board think about engine times, time since major etc? I would like to own and fly the plane 1-2 yrs and then sell, so that is a consideration also.

I'm looking to make a smart purchase.

Thanks!
 
You'll be amazed how quickly a couple of years pass by, at which time the buyers will be asking the same questions that you are asking now. While there's no fool-proof method of doing so, you should be asking yourself which purchase/sale cycle is likely to result in the least out-of-pocket $ to you after the proposed sale is complete.

That won't necessarily mean that you should buy the cheapest airplane, it may in fact mean that you want to buy the best one available, if you can negotiate a favorable price. An engine with 500 hours SMOH will presumably have ~800 hours in a couple of years, so it will still be a low-time engine compared to the majority of airplanes that are typically advertised for sale. If you buy an airplane with 800 hours now, the time at sale will be 1,100 and the "high-time" issues will be more prevalent.

Having danced to this tune numerous times over the years, I've concluded that buying the best one available, even if the price is higher, can be the smartest move insofar as money-out/money-in net cost is concerned.
 
wabower said:
Having danced to this tune numerous times over the years, I've concluded that buying the best one available, even if the price is higher, can be the smartest move insofar as money-out/money-in net cost is concerned.
Click to expand...
But the best one available isn't necessarily the lowest-time SMOH. AS the OP noted, 30 years since major is not good at all. Corrosion inside the engine, outstanding ADs (typically the oil pump impellers on Lycs) and the old valve guide materials in those engines (pre-'99) make them worth far less than remaining TBO would imply.

Dan
 
How could anybody with a lick of sense ever think that such an airplane could be the best one available?

Dan Thomas said:
But the best one available isn't necessarily the lowest-time SMOH. AS the OP noted, 30 years since major is not good at all. Corrosion inside the engine, outstanding ADs (typically the oil pump impellers on Lycs) and the old valve guide materials in those engines (pre-'99) make them worth far less than remaining TBO would imply.

Dan
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
How could anybody with a lick of sense ever think that such an airplane could be the best one available?
Click to expand...
Not reading PoA, for example. There may be people with more than "a lick of sense" who haven't yet "danced this tune numerous times".
 
Dan Thomas said:
But the best one available isn't necessarily the lowest-time SMOH. AS the OP noted, 30 years since major is not good at all. Corrosion inside the engine, outstanding ADs (typically the oil pump impellers on Lycs) and the old valve guide materials in those engines (pre-'99) make them worth far less than remaining TBO would imply.

Dan
Click to expand...

So does this mean I should be looking for an aircraft the had the major overhaul after 1999 ?

I agree with you guys and I'm not looking for the cheapest plane, but a good plane that will still be a good plane when I sell it 2 years from now.

Thanks!
 
It's not just the engine when you buy an older plane, there are numerous other "little" squawks that can bleed you dry. When I bought my airplane it was the oil caning wing step, $2,000. a few months later, the DG, another $2,000. then the radios, turned out I needed an avionics cooling fan, I think it was around $800. installed. Then my #1 VOR indicator went out, another $2,000.00. Those were just the big noticeable ones, lots of little things to keep picking at your wallet.

My plane is a 1978 PA 28-161. It had 1,400 hours on the engine, now it has 1,700 hrs on it. Decision time is fast approaching, sell it or spend another 25 K on a new engine. I probably have another few years of flying it before I reach TBO.

John
 
After all the cylinder, crankshaft, and oil pump ADs we have suffered thru on Lycomings, I believe the best buy out there is a pre 67, C-172/0-300-D even if you have to buy 6 new cylinder for it.

30 year old engine may have a set of 35 year old Superior cylinders on it, Those were the ones that were made in America, not Italy, Check republic, and china.
 
How long have you been following the market for the various planes on your list? What is the market telling you about values?
rbhankins001 said:
So does this mean I should be looking for an aircraft the had the major overhaul after 1999 ?

I agree with you guys and I'm not looking for the cheapest plane, but a good plane that will still be a good plane when I sell it 2 years from now.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
I have been following the market for these planes about 3 mos. It tells me that the aircraft market is SOFT and I can be a little picky and still get a great deal on a nice aircraft.

I just don't know what people consider low, mid, and high time.

Obviously 1750 hrs on an 1800 TBO is on the high side.

I also would think that 240 hrs on a plane over a 15 year timeframe would not be a good thing.

But is there a range (in hrs) and a timeline since the overhaul (in yrs) that I should be striving to find???

So I guess I'm looking for info such as "Hey Rob you want a plane that has been flown regularly, like X hrs per year, under 900 SMOH and the overhaul within 12 yrs" So that 2-3 years from know the average Joe will fly 50 hrs per yer and I would then have say 1050 hrs and it still be a desirable aircraft to the next owner.

Those are my gut feeling numbers, but I really don't know.

Thanks

-Rob
 
Rob- look for planes that have had a consistently active flying career. If they sat for years, then just flew a ton this year, I would run. However, if they have been flown even a moderate amount the risks are lower. Nothing good happens to airplanes when they sit. As far as engine time goes, tbo is a recommendation from the manufacture, not a hard and fast rule. if the compressions are strong and very little oil consumption, then you have a healthy engine. Lots of engines don't make it to tbo because try have sat.

Also, if a plane is actively flown a lot of the little issues get taken care of.
 
Last edited:
rbhankins001 said:
I find mid-time engines with the SMOH 30 yrs ago a little scary.

So what does the board think about engine times, time since major etc? I would like to own and fly the plane 1-2 yrs and then sell, so that is a consideration also.
Click to expand...
If I found a plane that was well kept and had the panel I wanted, 30 years since o/h wouldn't make me automatically reject it. Go through the logs. All AD's done? 1/2" valves? Leaks? Dry climate? If it all looks good, pull a jug and check for corrosion. Actually, pull a jug no matter how old the engine is, a cam change isn't cheap. Age means nothing if the engine checks out.

An engine is either low time, high time. or ready for o/h. None of this mid time bs. Few private aircraft make it to tbo without having work done.

On a 2000 TBO engine, the difference in value between 800 and 1800 is effectively nothing. You don't know when a cylinder might crack or a mag might pack it in. In fact, an 1800hr engine is more likely to have been topped and had more maintenance done than a 1000hr engine that the owner still thinks is new enough not to need anything.

There are many cpl students buying trainers for time building near, at, or over tbo and selling them for what they bought them for a couple of hundred hours later. It would be nice to find one with a few hundred hours on it and take advantage of the lower maintenance and higher resale but the more money you have tied up, the more you can lose. At my field, the low timers take a lot longer to sell as nobody has the money to spend.

And don't rule out the Beech Musketeer. Same as a Cherokee, just better built, lower maintenance and usually cheaper.
 
N2124v said:
Rob- look for planes that have had a consistently active flying career. If they sat for years, then just flew a ton this year, I would run. However, if they have been flown even a moderate amount the risks are lower. Nothing good happens to airplanes when they sit. As far as engine time goes, tbo is a recommendation from the manufacture, not a hard and fast rule. if the compressions are strong and very little oil consumption, then you have a healthy engine. Lots of engines don't make it to tbo because try have sat.

Also, if a plane is actively flown a lot of the little issues get taken care of.
Click to expand...


Are you flying a Cessna 140? If your moniker is your tail number, it sounds like it?

Doc
 
N2124v said:
Rob- look for planes that have had a consistently active flying career. If they sat for years, then just flew a ton this year, I would run.
Click to expand...

That's a major misconception of a tire kicker. If any engine has run over 50 hours in the past year there is no reason it should not continue to do so.
 
I picked up N2124V in 2003 brand new from Cessna for my flight school. We sold it a few years later when we shut down. I wish I had been able to keep it, sigh...

Tom- i should clarify, a plane that has been sitting, then flown just a few hours, then put up for sale.
 
FYI in my mind (i work in the boating world) there is nothing worse than a boat that sits, and I know aircraft are not boats, but still this is in my mind.

Anyways, in my limited view, I would think that a plane that has flown 50 - 60 hrs a year, with reasonable TTAF (not crazy trainer numbers like 14,000 hrs), SMOH time of 550 hrs with the overhaul 10 yrs ago would be just great (if everything else checks out).

But I really don't know anything other than my 150L that has about 500 hrs on a 2004 overhaul and it has been a good little plane (I'm keeping it for now, in addition to another small aircraft).

So let me know what you guys think about my "perception" of what to look for. I do have an open mind and won't rule anything out at this point.

Thank you.

-Rob
 
I am looking for a little newer (like 20-30 yrs newer most likely).

Thank you though, a tailwheel would be great (even though I don't have the endorsment, yet).

Nice aircraft.
 
Sounds like you have the concept doped out pretty well, but now the reality sets in. Perfect airplanes are scarce, and those that are flying regularly aren't typically for sale. So you and the other buyers are left to sort out the imperfect airplanes and try to make the best lemonade you can.

Many factors other than engine time obviously play into the equation, and can be in the same cost range as an overhaul or top.
Avionics, modifications cosmetics (paint and interior) and other factors must be quantified and weighed as part of the decision. For example, if your flying will mostly consist of the X/C trip you described, an autopilot might be a great accessory for your particular usage (it would for me) and you might assign a higher value to a nice Stect 30-A than would somebody who's buying to get a rating and fly hamburger runs. A spreadsheet that assigns the values as you perceive them can be a valuable tool in tracking and possibly negotiating a purchase.
rbhankins001 said:
).

So let me know what you guys think about my "perception" of what to look for. I do have an open mind and won't rule anything out at this point.

Thank you.

-Rob
Click to expand...
 
rbhankins001 said:
I am looking for a little newer (like 20-30 yrs newer most likely).

Thank you though, a tailwheel would be great (even though I don't have the endorsment, yet).

Nice aircraft.
Click to expand...

That aircraft is built better, flys better, than any 17- built after I've owned one, I wish I had it back.
 
Educate me about the 170 then.

I'm 6 miles from Louisiana where that aircraft is located (although it is in SW Louisiana).

I would take a good taildragger (esp. because I have an airstrip behind my winter house that is grass).

You will have to convince me though, that plane is a little older than I'd like.

-Rob
 
Rob, a good 170 is an awesome plane. I've ever only had the pleasure of flying in one once but it was a lot of fun, good on the grass, and short fields, it was a real pleasure to fly in.

As for engine times I used to think OMG you have to get an OH at 2000 hrs the engine could quit!:yikes:

But for a few years now I've flow regularly in a friends Cherokee 140 with the 160hp engine ( also has the Art Matson mods, wingtips, VGs and prop) I think the engine has 1200 or 1400 hrs now. Although at some point my buddy put new cylinders on, and that thing is sooo smooth and reliable. I'd bet it would go to 3000. Of course buying you are dealing with the unknown so I can understand your apprehension. Keep evaluating and asking questions there is a lot of info on POA regarding such matters and many who certainly know more than I.
 
rbhankins001 said:
Educate me about the 170 then.

I'm 6 miles from Louisiana where that aircraft is located (although it is in SW Louisiana).

I would take a good taildragger (esp. because I have an airstrip behind my winter house that is grass).

You will have to convince me though, that plane is a little older than I'd like.
-Rob
Click to expand...
There were 712 of them built with Rag wings as in the over sized 140. they have no dihedral no dorsal fin. the rag wing is faster than all the 172s or the A or B 170. Mine would indicate 132 MPH all day. Leaned to best power and with 2 aboard. It would climb at 900' Per Minute.and burn 7.5 GPH. The Aircraft came with the C-145 at 145 horse power, it has 300 CI 6 cylinder that became the 0-300-A, and now the 0-300-D is an alternate engine on the type certificate as is the Franklin 165 heavy case. the things to have are the cleveland wheels & breaks, scott tailwheel, ceconite wing covers, Radios are what you get there were none in the aircraft from the factory unless you ordered a Narco Homer mark 8.
The fuselage is basically the same all the way thru 1967, with minor changes of windows. My 170 would land shorter than any 172, but you must be proficient to get it done. they have the small flaps, which act more as speed breaks.
by a big slip will get it slowed up pretty good.

the bad things, age has taken its toll on corrosion in the aft cabin formers and cabin carry thru, and the rear most fuselage has a tendency to crack. both are easy spotted, and repaired.

They are a great old aircraft, they are fun to fly, and increasing in value every day and will keep their value in any market. They are well supported by a type club and a membership club called the "170 association"
 

Attachments

  • 170 Pictures 067.jpg
    170 Pictures 067.jpg
    154.3 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
That 170 is OUT.

The owners rebuilt a 180 and have an A&P that "signs off". Not for me.

I'm also not a fan of fabric wings.

Sooooo, let's get back to 140/160, 180 cherokee and C172.

Thanks for your help guys!

PS are all 0-300 6 cyl. 1400 TBO (this one was) ?

-Rob
 
rbhankins001 said:
That 170 is OUT.

Dumb

The owners rebuilt a 180 and have an A&P that "signs off". Not for me.

That is what pre buys are for

I'm also not a fan of fabric wings.

Why the hell not ? there is no wood in the 170 wing, and the new systems are good for 50 years and beyond. they are faster and lighter, which means you can carry more in the baggage compartment.

Sooooo, let's get back to 140/160, 180 cherokee and C172.

Thanks for your help guys!

PS are all 0-300 6 cyl. 1400 TBO (this one was) ?

-Rob
Click to expand...
TBO on a 0-300 is 1800 now, see the Continental service bulletin. Yer missing a hell of a good aircraft, which will out lift and out run any newer 172, go fly it.. see what yer missing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top