https://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=1820962 This is an aircraft that could use a paint job. However, would it be a bad idea to not bother spending money on paint (at least for several years)? Could the deplorable exterior lead to problems that may render the aircraft unairworthy, such as rust or corrosion? Also, would it increase the drag during flight? A Cherokee 140 isn’t exactly a speed machine, though I have heard of some aircraft having a slightly increased airspeed after a new paint job? With an asking price of only $42k, this could be a good budget aircraft if a pilot doesn’t mind flying a butt-ugly aircraft, so long as everything else is in decent shape (big ‘if’; DEFINITELY want a thorough pre-buy inspection), and the dilapidated paint wouldn’t lead to problems).
Depends on who you ask. That Cherokee 5 years ago would have brought about $16,000. Corrosion does need to be taken into account but bad paint does not equal bad airplane. To give you an example - I have a Grumman AA5 that is for sale and I'm asking $55K. It needs paint but is nowhere near as bad as that Cherokee's. It has an autopilot, decent avionics, mid time engine and flies regularly. Because of the paint, I am getting zero interest in it but planes that have worse avionics, no autopilot and higher time engines (but nice paint) are selling regularly. If I put $15K in to a paint job, the AA5 would sell immediately for $65-70K.
Wow, that’s bad. The problem is it gives the impression the owner has not maintained the aircraft and rightfully so IMHO. You’re better off paying the big bucks for someone’s baby than a neglected plane that may require large amounts of money to just get it airworthy, let along looking good.
A dangerous group of words. If you’re anticipating getting into ownership, don’t think a cheap acquisition price will lend you any favors. I’d like to know how the paint got into that condition. It either spent a good bit of its life outside, sat idle, or a combination of the two. In the end, paint doesn’t make a plane fly, but I’ve seen original paint from the 60’s look better, so that would be my starting point.
Very true. It could be that it’s flown and maintained regularly, it was simply never hangared and the owner(s) didn’t wax regularly. And then it could be like you say, it’s sat and deteriorated over the years.
This would be a great question to ask the mechanic who will sign off your first annual should buy it. Airworthiness/condition issues are very subjective to the person. For example, I would tell you based on those pics if it was mechanically sound and a good flyer at a great price to buy it. However, your APIA could take one look at it and go off in a different direction. I'm a broken record on this, but the 1st priority when looking for an aircraft is to get your APIA onboard before you start looking.
Paint is the first line of defense against corrosion, and a proper paint job is just not cheap. I'd rather have to try to sell a bird with a good paint job and a mid to high time power plant than the other way around...
Flying butt ugly is one thing. But I see bare aluminum on the fuselage and stabilator along with rusted screws on the dorsal fairing. And what looks like 172 yokes. Wonder if that swap was documented correctly? I would be doing a very thorough pre buy because what I see makes me wonder what I cant My dad's old 160 prior to being repainted, you would touch a wing and would have this white powder all over your hands. The paint was bad, but it was there. He had it painted 20 years ago and 5357w is still flying
And it’s not just the visible surface, water can seep into the crevices (wing/fuselage, window/fuselage, etc). And could result in catastrophic main spar damage, not just some surface damage.
If there was a Maaco of aviation, they would make a killing. I would love new paint but I got a quote for base paint job of $17k I can't justify that.
That’s beautiful. How do you do that and how long does it last? Does it still ding up as quickly as a newly painted airplane?
I may be wrong but looking at the instrument panel you may need to invest some money there as well. Before I would waste time and money I would see what the panel needs in addition to its recent flying history.
The aircraft is based in Llano, TX. That paint generated a vision in my head of years in the broiling sun, the hot Texas wind whipping through the mesquite trees and across the ramp, while the control surfaces bang against the stops as new gusts roll through.
TLR - it's not an automatic no for me, but it depends. Corrosion would be my first concern, so obviously a thorough inspection with that as a focus would be something I would want. This would not be a deal breaker for me if everything else looks favorable, but I think it does want some added attention. Based in TX with weak paint is (IMO) much better than based in Florida or Long Beach with weak paint. Maybe. Maybe not. Inspect carefully for that, because there's not enough info here to know for sure. Although I don't know for sure, hard for me to imagine that would make enough difference to matter in this case. Well, that depends a lot on how many of those big bucks you happen to have. It's easy advice to give, but not everyone may find it equally easy to follow. That's a good story, and a very cinematic image. But it's just a story until you actually know the airplane's history. If that's something you can't find out, then well... yeah, this could be what it was. Adjust your price accordingly, of course.
It’s not about airworthiness, but if you’re going to allow your paint to get to such a bad condition for whatever reason, then it’s very likely that you will not address other issues. I hate seeing planes neglected to such a degree, we’re not talking about some faded paint. Comment was about justification of a new paint job, if you can justify a plane, you can justify maintaining it. After all, the plane is not a necessity for most of us…you wanted a plane, so you bought one.
Shiny. People love shiny. If it's shiny it must be in good shape. Fancy Dancy fresh paint tells you that you have a nice airplane. Great example of a beautiful paint job. Don't buy an airplane with bad paint. Sure to be neglected.
I also think you might take better care of an airplane that's freshly painted, at least for several years.
When buying my Arrow I initially looked at a plane with 3 year old engine and paint. The paint was already fairing from the Florida sun and I was very worried about the engine being rusted out from 3 years of neglect. I went with a plane that had original (from 2002) paint with just some chips. Starts and flies great.
If the paint is that bad from sitting in the sun, then I’d say it’s almost a surefire bet that every piece of rubber and plastic on the plane is dried and cracked. Probably not too far off the mark to say the plane in the OP is a restoration project. If you can buy it for less than 20 grand and have a lot of free time, and a functional plane to fly in the meantime, maybe it’s worth buying.
I used to lament how pretty airplanes always outsold well maintained but ugly planes -- but it makes sense. joe planebuyer can way more credibly assess if the paint is good, vs if all of the maintenance is good.
It takes a lot of labor and parts to get a 50 YO aircraft back in the air with fresh paint. If the maintenance is totally up and up each 50 YO part needs to be scrutinized while the plane is apart. Very rarely does a Cherokee of any age not need a couple wing panels replaced. The Wing Walk panels are cracked out quite often.
It's an old airplane. Paint's purpose is to protect the metal. That metal ain't protected. . . would most owners scrupulously maintain everything else except the paint? While I think paint does fall rather far down the list of maintnenance items for many of us, that's to a certain point. And I think these pics show an airplane well past that admittedly subjective point. Now I'm wondering if someone has taken a close look at that Cherokee's center spar section? I'm not a Cherokee expert, but I've heard that's a common corrosion issue with the model.
I play with paint.... a lot. Many guys would rather not have to mess with paint or the associated down time and cost, which is why pretty planes with sub standard mx sell. I'm pretty sure if corrosion isn't a factor folks will choose a cosmetically nice a/c and do a flying mechanical resto rather than the opposite. These planes are new and properly maintained, but not all pretty planes are. Do you prefer top o/h's or sanding and respirators? That is the question.
