High time airframe question

therealmjfox

therealmjfox

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
3
Location
Moncure, NC
Display Name
Display name:
therealmjfox
[SIZE=-1]Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection, are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability, etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000 AFTT.[/SIZE]
 
therealmjfox said:
[SIZE=-1]Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection, are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability, etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000 AFTT.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

I don't have enough experience to answer your question intelligently, but I can give you a data point. I did my primary training in, and continue to fly, a 172 with over 13,000 TT on the airframe. There are minor flaws, but it still seems to fly just fine.

Also, based on my (limited) conversations with other owners, it doesn't seem like airframe time is much of a concern to them. Obviously, make sure that you have a full pre-buy inspection done, though... in order to (hopefully) catch anything that the seller isn't disclosing.
 
I'm going through some of this stuff now. None of the insurance companies have asked about airframe time so that doesn't seem to be an issue.

I'll echo what mjburian said about an inspection. I'd suggest a buy-sell agreement be in place before the inspection which clearly states who is responsible for what and then have a thorough inspection. Spending a couple AMUs up front can save many AMUs down the road.
 
I agrre with both marty and clark haVE A good PRE-BUY done and dont use his mechanic. I bought 85A with 8539 AFTT on it but it was a FBO's school IFR trainer.
So dont be affraid of time just make sure your getting a Airworthy Plane.
Good Luck and FLY SAFE
Dave G
 
If it is the one on barnstormers.com, I would be more concerned with LOTS of corrosion.
 
Last edited:
therealmjfox said:
[SIZE=-1]Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection, are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability, etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000 AFTT.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

I wonder what Piper's engineers used as a design life for the PA28 series?

I think if I were a buyer, I would want to know how the aircraft accumulated its hours. For instance, if it were a pipeline/powerline patrol or traffic plane, flying down low in the bumps, I would be more concerned that if it accumulated its hours up higher. My guess is since it's a Warrior, it probably got its hours in a school environment, probably more that one school at that.

What's the price difference on this one vs. one that's racked up 100 or 200 hours/year?


Trapper John
 
Keep in mind also that if you need to sell it in a hurry you will be in trouble. High time airplanes take longer to sell, even steeply discounted.
 
Be sure to have someone knowledgeable check the wing walk area. There is a bulkhead under there that cracks. It can be detected from the top by the way the wing walk flexes but I don't know details of exactly what to look for. It is not at all fatal, but can be a bit expensive ($2-3K guess) to fix. New skin, new bulkhead, a lot of new rivets, paint.

The hanging steps can also have cracks. EZ fix to reweld but be sure to check.

The gauges (fuel, oil, etc) are nla except from places like Wentworh. Piper has some kind of replacement cluster that I have been told is very expensive.
 
airdale said:
The gauges (fuel, oil, etc) are nla except from places like Wentworh. Piper has some kind of replacement cluster that I have been told is very expensive.
Click to expand...
Auracle just got STC approval for primary use in Pipers. Granted that might be overkill in an 11,000-hour Warrior, but cheaper than "very expensive."
 
I found it very interesting that Richard Collins chose to have his P210 dismantled after 9000h on the airframe.
 
therealmjfox said:
[SIZE=-1]Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection, are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability, etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000 AFTT.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...


The only insurance issue you'll see is with max hull value. As for real problems with the airframe, lots of variables there. It may be worn beyond reparations or it might be fine, but it warrants a deep inspection. Personally, unless the plane was well known to me and well equipped, I'd pass.
 
Henning said:
The only insurance issue you'll see is with max hull value. As for real problems with the airframe, lots of variables there. It may be worn beyond reparations or it might be fine, but it warrants a deep inspection. Personally, unless the plane was well known to me and well equipped, I'd pass.
Click to expand...

Concur. :yes:
 
gprellwitz said:
But I didn't think that had to do with the hours on the airframe.:dunno:
Click to expand...

I think it did. He was afraid to sell it to someone who might have it come apart on them. Liability, see. What a wonderful thing.
And 9000 hours isn't that high at all.

Dan
________
buy vapor genie
 
Last edited:
therealmjfox said:
[SIZE=-1]Assuming proper maintanence and a good airframe log/book inspection, are there any concerns about high time airframes, like insurability, etc? My partners and I are looking at a warrior with over 11,000 AFTT.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

The only plane I have this information on is my own, a Cessna 411. Original design specs called for the first wing spar inspection to be performed at 30,000 hours. That has since been changed by the controversial AD requiring a wing spar strap, but that was the original. What the Warrior might have is beyond my knowledge. My personal cut-off for TTAF on a plane I'm buying is 10,000 hours, and I prefer it much lower. 56Q had about 3,600 hours when I bought her in 1991.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I think it did. He was afraid to sell it to someone who might have it come apart on them. Liability, see. What a wonderful thing.
And 9000 hours isn't that high at all.

Dan
Click to expand...

It more specifically had to do with the number of pressure cycles the pressurized airframe had undergone and the absence of a 210 knowledgeable buyer. He felt he could sell to someone who knew what they were getting into, but without that knowledge and with his knowledge of the Cessna engineers design life (not hours but pressure cycles) he felt better about scrapping it. And, as I recall, it wasn't liability but conscience.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top