Do you agree with "Too much airframe time"?

At some point, the answer to the OP's question is nobody really knows for most airframes. The truth is, at some point in an airframes life span, we all become test pilots. The life limit on an airframe is typically established by actual experience in the field. How long an airframe go? Nobody really knows until there is a failure trend established. I suspect that for most airframes, that is closer to 20,000 hours, but that's just my WAG.

The original designers and engineers of our planes never dreamed many of these planes would be in regular service this long. They were all supposed to be replaced by now with newer designs, but with GA in decline, we are headed for uncharted territory. A day when airframes over 10,000 hours become the norm, rather than the exception.

Airframe TT is just like damage history. It's a bargaining chip during sales negotiations and that's about it. You can accept the high time at great discount, or move on and find something lower time. I personally think the hardest wear on our planes is the annual inspection!

Yup..... (Great post btw)
 
Every maker has high-quality and low-quality products, and within each, high and low quality aspects of their construction and design.

Pilots as a whole aren't morons. The resale prices on each of these relative to others in their class tends to suss out which models have advantages, and which have disadvantages. Relative to their peers in class, there are laughably cheap beeches (Musketeers, pre-58 Bonanzas, Tbones, early King Airs) and very expensive ones (Bonanza 36s, Skippers, Queen Airs). Same with each other maker.

A clever/experienced buyer can figure out what causes a depressed price in a certain model, and decide that it doesn't affect his own mission, and score an optimal deal for his flying.

Angrily defending Beechcraft just drags the marque down to everyone else's level. If your plane isn't a turd, why even acknowledge the slur and give it credibility in the process? Just be secure in your aircraft choice, particularly if the market agrees with you.

$0.02
 
Just shut the door on a cherokee or 172 then shut the door on a musketeer. I've had the door pop open numerous times on C&P never in a beech. Look at the Bo seats vs C&P. Compare the landing gear on a Bo to a 182RG. I will take the Bo gear any day and twice on Sunday over anything Cessna ever made. My cherokee seats weRe ummm primitive compared to my Bo. Don't forget about the auto slide feature of the cessna seats.

That's just to get started.

TangoCharlies Bo Door came open on me last week. Scared the bejesus out of me at first.

That was my only ride in one so my experience is the door flies open 100% of the time :)

The bo feels sturdier to me. I think it is because it is heavy. :dunno:
The 172 feels flimsy-er in comparison.
 
Last edited:
The original designers and engineers of our planes never dreamed many of these planes would be in regular service this long. They were all supposed to be replaced by now with newer designs, but with GA in decline, we are headed for uncharted territory. A day when airframes over 10,000 hours become the norm, rather than the exception.


Didn't some of them specify airframe life limits? I know the PA46 has a 10,000 hour airframe life limit. Note to self: make sure I sell mine well before then! :lol:
 
Regardless of manufacturer, would anyone here purposely avoid a plane (ANY PLANE) simply because of TTAF? I'm trying to put my neighbor's concerns to rest regarding high TTAF and show him that just because a frame has high TTAF, you shouldn't kill it without looking into it more. It seems that other here agree and I'm trying to gauge how others feel about high TTAF so I can show him this thread...

side note: doesn't the cirrus have an airframe life limit? I think i heard that once but I'm not entirely sure.
 
TangoCharlies Bo Door came open on me last week. Scared the bejesus out of me at first.

That was my only ride in one so my experience is the door flies open 100% of the time :)

The bo feels sturdier to me. I think it is because it is heavy. :dunno:
The 172 feels flimsy-er in comparison.

Did you shut it or did he? You gotta latch it(something the cessnas and pipers I've flown do not have)
 
Regardless of manufacturer, would anyone here purposely avoid a plane (ANY PLANE) simply because of TTAF? I'm trying to put my neighbor's concerns to rest regarding high TTAF and show him that just because a frame has high TTAF, you shouldn't kill it without looking into it more. It seems that other here agree and I'm trying to gauge how others feel about high TTAF so I can show him this thread...

side note: doesn't the cirrus have an airframe life limit? I think i heard that once but I'm not entirely sure.

I wouldn't buy a high time airframe. The number of people looking for a plane with 10,000 hrs is very small and you'll have to sell it to them on their terms. It may be nice, but I wouldn't even call on it.
 
Did you shut it or did he? You gotta latch it(something the cessnas and pipers I've flown do not have)

I shut it but I believe there is a known issue with the latch on the particular plane. He explained before hand there is a trick to it. I didn't do it right I think.
 
I wouldn't buy a high time airframe. The number of people looking for a plane with 10,000 hrs is very small and you'll have to sell it to them on their terms. It may be nice, but I wouldn't even call on it.

Thats interesting. It sounds like some other people have similar feelings and perhaps my neighbor was right about high time frames.

I have an Arrow 3 that just hit the 8,000 hour mark. I was planning on putting a G500 with a GTN750, but maybe I should just sell?
 
Regardless of manufacturer, would anyone here purposely avoid a plane (ANY PLANE) simply because of TTAF? I'm trying to put my neighbor's concerns to rest regarding high TTAF and show him that just because a frame has high TTAF, you shouldn't kill it without looking into it more. It seems that other here agree and I'm trying to gauge how others feel about high TTAF so I can show him this thread...

side note: doesn't the cirrus have an airframe life limit? I think i heard that once but I'm not entirely sure.

Depends on my use for the airplane, maybe yes, maybe no. Lots of factors involved.
 
Beech doors most certainly do pop open in flight. :lol:

Ain't that the truth. My only unintended door open experience was in a Beech product (Duchess). I also recall a girl who was killed trying to return to PHX in a Bo after the door opened in flight back.
 
Ain't that the truth. My only unintended door open experience was in a Beech product (Duchess). I also recall a girl who was killed trying to return to PHX in a Bo after the door opened in flight back.


How?.
 
I'm just curious what other owners here think about "too much airframe time"?...

Of course it matters. Even though many here say it doesn't, we will all buy the lower time airframe, other things being equal. The market prices high airframes accordingly, and it does it because as a general rule, the older the airframe, the more worn. Of course there are exceptions; the pipeline airplane with 2000 hours is no doubt looser than the 4000 hour fair weather XC airplane, but when it comes time to sell, most buyers will demand you follow the "general rule" and won't care about exceptions.
 
Sorry. I left that open didn't I?
How did she die? A door popping open shouldn't lead to a crash.

Exactly. She didn't Aviate, Navigate and Communicate in short. It's happened a lot, but that was just the one that I personally remember because it happened near me. Basically, the door popped open in the climb and she told tower what happened. Then....we assume she lost control of the airplane trying to lean over and close the door in flight.

Most airplanes will fly just fine with the door open. Fly the plane and deal with the door on the ground.
 
Well I guess since we're on the subject of TTAF, can anyone tell me when the ideal time is to sell? My arrow 3 just hit 8,000 hours... Should I be looking at selling it? I was planning to do a G500 install with a GTN750 and keep it for at least 10-15 more years.. but by then it would have at least another 1,000 hours and it seems people try to avoid planes with that kind of time... What do you guys think?
 
Well I guess since we're on the subject of TTAF, can anyone tell me when the ideal time is to sell? My arrow 3 just hit 8,000 hours... Should I be looking at selling it? I was planning to do a G500 install with a GTN750 and keep it for at least 10-15 more years.. but by then it would have at least another 1,000 hours and it seems people try to avoid planes with that kind of time... What do you guys think?
If it works for you why sell it? Fly it till it doesn't work for you anymore then take your loss like a man. People are nuts if they expect anything out of already old GA planes in 10-15 years. Pilot numbers, ADS-B III requirements, and really really cheap 30 year old Cirruses... Or maybe the price will go up because flying examples will be rare.:lol:
 
Regardless of manufacturer, would anyone here purposely avoid a plane (ANY PLANE) simply because of TTAF? I'm trying to put my neighbor's concerns to rest regarding high TTAF and show him that just because a frame has high TTAF, you shouldn't kill it without looking into it more. It seems that other here agree and I'm trying to gauge how others feel about high TTAF so I can show him this thread...

side note: doesn't the cirrus have an airframe life limit? I think i heard that once but I'm not entirely sure.

I would with conditions. It has to be significantly discounted to reflect the high time. One just has to remember that if you buy it cheap you need to realize you have to sell it cheap no matter how much paint, interior and Garmin/Aspen upgrades you have done. You can't "fix" high TT with a pretty paint job with swoops on the side.

In addition, there are some airframes that do have time limits on them based on field experience. Piper Tomahawks and Rockwell Commanders come to mind, but I'm sure there are others. These planes would need more scrutiny and education before buying a high time plane of this variety. That doesn't mean I wouldn't buy one of this type. I would do my homework and expect the same level of skepticism when I go to sell it.

Having said all this, I would say that anybody buying a piston engine airplane that is not rare, or collectible like a P-51 or something, and expect to sell it for what they paid is delusional! GA is in a free fall decline and prices for all GA planes except brand new ones are falling fast. I see nothing on horizon that will change that.

Love the plane for what it can do for you, or how it makes you feel, not what you think it's worth on the market.
 
Nicest straightest flying 172 I've ever flown has over 10,000 hours on the airframe and has spent the majority of that as a rental.

Worst flying 172 I ever flew was a rental in New Orleans that was maybe four years old.
 
The bo feels sturdier to me. I think it is because it is heavy. :dunno:
The 172 feels flimsy-er in comparison.

In many ways the Bo is sturdier. It's utility category throughout it's whole w&b range.

Compare the yoke assembly of a Bo compared to most other products. A cessna's yoke tube is this floppy thing with tons of slop. A bo's yoke assembly is heavy, smooth, and precise feeling.
 
When you see the way they work Bonanzas as bush planes in Australia you start to understand how rugged the thing really is. The only GA plane I think is better built than a Bonanza is a Commander. The 112/114/115 series are some really stoutly built planes. I did maintenance on a 112TC and a 114, and I was always coming across things that made me go 'wow, look what they did there, that's never going to break'.
 
Sorry. I left that open didn't I?
How did she die? A door popping open shouldn't lead to a crash.

It's happened enough times that it's taught on every BPPP training flight. Basically distraction from the door -- which if unlatched, pops just after rotation, and the pilot freaks out and loses it -- plane isn't trimmed right, wing rolls and strikes the ground, or some other low altitude shenanigan without enough altitude for recovery. Worse, if they try to re-latch the thing in flight, which is near impossible.

It's a VERY loud/percussion type of noise. It's also completely harmless if ignored.. but it'll get your adrenaline up. Having forgotten to latch mine once, I can say that it is VERY refreshing to bop around Los Angeles in summer around sunset with a popped door. The amount of wind that whips around the cockpit is quite an experience. Of course, goodbye every paper item in the cockpit.

The emergency exit windows in back can also not be latched properly and pop right around the same time. They at least will whistle first before they pop, so you at least have a "wtf is that?" moment before they blow.

I've never had a door that was latched pop in flight. I've had some that were out of rig enough that they were difficult to latch. Problem is 50 years of people using them as crutches to haul themselves out of the plane on -- tends to do bad things to hinges.
 
Yes I believe in high time airframes are not as good as a low time airframe. Simply because I believe in age hardening of aluminum, plus work hardening by vibrations,

All the high time airframe aircraft I see are beat to crap, trainers.

normally owners do not put that much time on privately owned aircraft.
 
What he said, adding that every plane purchase should be made with an exit strategy. You can't erase time off the airframe.

If you truely said, this is the last plane I'd ever own, the story might be different. In reality, most owners will one day sell.

Yes I believe in high time airframes are not as good as a low time airframe. Simply because I believe in age hardening of aluminum, plus work hardening by vibrations,

All the high time airframe aircraft I see are beat to crap, trainers.

normally owners do not put that much time on privately owned aircraft.
 
Back
Top