Understanding Aircraft Times

MikeAlfa

MikeAlfa

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
11
Display Name
Display name:
MikeAlpha
Hey Guys. Does anyone have a limit on the amount of airframe hours when purchasing an aircraft? For that matter, how many hours, overhaul after overhaul should an engine last? I'm looking at an 1980 Archer II that must have been heavily used by a flight school at one point and now owned by a flying club. TTAF 6100hrs and still the same engine after about 3 major overhauls. Still looks to be in great shape though and well maintained. Thanks!
 
MikeAlfa said:
Hey Guys. Does anyone have a limit on the amount of airframe hours when purchasing an aircraft? For that matter, how many hours, overhaul after overhaul should an engine last? I'm looking at an 1980 Archer II that must have been heavily used by a flight school at one point and now owned by a flying club. TTAF 6100hrs and still the same engine after about 3 major overhauls. Still looks to be in great shape though and well maintained. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Consider this, when the engine is overhauled the crank shaft is normally re-ground. they normally will be cut .010" under the first time they regrind it. second time ? who knows .020 under is the Superior STC limit. Bearings at .002/4/6 are difficult to find. you can assume that at 3 overhauls your crank will probably require replacement. you can check prices at Aircraft Specialities Services. inc.
 
Tom-D said:
Consider this, when the engine is overhauled the crank shaft is normally re-ground. they normally will be cut .010" under the first time they regrind it. second time ? who knows .020 under is the Superior STC limit. Bearings at .002/4/6 are difficult to find. you can assume that at 3 overhauls your crank will probably require replacement. you can check prices at Aircraft Specialities Services. inc.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I will check the log books and see if it was ever changed. Does the case ever become worn to the point that cracks etc. are more likely in a high time engine?
 
MikeAlfa said:
Thanks, I will check the log books and see if it was ever changed. Does the case ever become worn to the point that cracks etc. are more likely in a high time engine?
Click to expand...
Yes, it can be ruined in failure. most can be salvaged by several means. and they can be replaced and the data tag remain as the case is replaced
 
The Archer doesn't have a pressurized airframe, so really the quantity of hours will be far less important than the quality of hours. What's the history of this aircraft as far as the kind of life it's had? There are 172's out there with well over 15,000 hours on the airframe, so I wouldn't let 6,000ttaf be a deal breaker, if everything else checks out.
 
Ryanb said:
The Archer doesn't have a pressurized airframe, so really the quantity of hours will be far less important than the quality of hours. What's the history of this aircraft as far as the kind of life it's had? There are 172's out there with well over 15,000 hours on the airframe, so I wouldn't let 6,000ttaf be a deal breaker, if everything else checks out.
Click to expand...
Right now it is owned by 10 people in a flying club for the past 6 years. Not sure about its early life though. Looking at the amount of time it was used per year in the log books (200-300 hrs), I'm guessing it must have been a flight school. But who knows, Ill have to do some research and maybe spring for the FAA registration list. Quantity vs quality, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the reply.
 
MikeAlfa said:
Thanks, I will check the log books and see if it was ever changed. Does the case ever become worn to the point that cracks etc. are more likely in a high time engine?
Click to expand...

Lycoming re-uses engine cases on their so-called "zero time, new logbook" engines, so that would suggest if the case is soundon re-build it should not be a major risk.
 
MikeAlfa said:
Right now it is owned by 10 people in a flying club for the past 6 years. Not sure about its early life though. Looking at the amount of time it was used per year in the log books (200-300 hrs), I'm guessing it must have been a flight school. But who knows, Ill have to do some research and maybe spring for the FAA registration list. Quantity vs quality, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the reply.
Click to expand...

It's higher than average time (typical for that vintage would be closer to 4000 TTAF), but a plane that has been flown regularly is better than one that's been sitting.

Not enough info in your posts to say much more than that, but nothing in them that suggests it should not be investigated further as a candidate either. Are they trying to sell the plane or are you looking to buy a share?
 
Ryanb said:
The Archer doesn't have a pressurized airframe, so really the quantity of hours will be far less important than the quality of hours. What's the history of this aircraft as far as the kind of life it's had? There are 172's out there with well over 15,000 hours on the airframe, so I wouldn't let 6,000ttaf be a deal breaker, if everything else checks out.
Click to expand...
Sorry is the day when we can't find a better aircraft with a lot less time.
 
Tom-D said:
Sorry is the day when we can't find a better aircraft with a lot less time.
Click to expand...
I heard that, although most of the time we can find them, we just can't afford them. :D
 
GRG55 said:
It's higher than average time (typical for that vintage would be closer to 4000 TTAF), but a plane that has been flown regularly is better than one that's been sitting.

Not enough info in your posts to say much more than that, but nothing in them that suggests it should not be investigated further as a candidate either. Are they trying to sell the plane or are you looking to buy a share?
Click to expand...
They are selling and I'm looking to buy one. I'm taking a look at it tomorrow and hopefully I'll be able to tell if it's been abused or not. So far in its life the logs show one prop strike and repair to an aileron. And my other concern is that it also has 6100hrs on the engine over 3 overhauls. But guys have been saying that that's no big deal either as long as the overhauls were handled properly. We'll see. Thanks.
 
MikeAlfa said:
They are selling and I'm looking to buy one. I'm taking a look at it tomorrow and hopefully I'll be able to tell if it's been abused or not. So far in its life the logs show one prop strike and repair to an aileron. And my other concern is that it also has 6100hrs on the engine over 3 overhauls. But guys have been saying that that's no big deal either as long as the overhauls were handled properly. We'll see. Thanks.
Click to expand...
I'd just be curious to know what was replaced and what wasn't. Let us know how it goes!
 
MikeAlfa said:
They are selling and I'm looking to buy one. I'm taking a look at it tomorrow and hopefully I'll be able to tell if it's been abused or not. So far in its life the logs show one prop strike and repair to an aileron. And my other concern is that it also has 6100hrs on the engine over 3 overhauls. But guys have been saying that that's no big deal either as long as the overhauls were handled properly. We'll see. Thanks.
Click to expand...

All comes down to price at the end. I expect that Lycoming has a 2000 hr TBO, so it's probably close. I would expect prospect of another overhaul in a couple hundred more hours might be the primary motive to sell?
 
GRG55 said:
All comes down to price at the end. I expect that Lycoming has a 2000 hr TBO, so it's probably close. I would expect prospect of another overhaul in a couple hundred more hours might be the primary motive to sell?
Click to expand...
Yeah I should have mentioned that, it only has 590 on a Mattituck overhaul done in 2006. My mechanic has been maintaining the plane, coincidentally, for the past 4 years. And, it's only a 20 minute drive away. Not that that should matter. The price is comparable to other similar Archers for sale now. Which in my opinion is about 10k more than it should be, just because they are so popular. It is a very affordablely cool plane though, so I kind of understand.
 
For reference my 81 Archer II has about 5600 hours on it. 3rd overhaul as well. Runs like a dream. Just have to maintain it.
 
Depends on the plane.

If your case I wouldn't be concerned.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
For reference my 81 Archer II has about 5600 hours on it. 3rd overhaul as well. Runs like a dream. Just have to maintain it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the comment Neal. The one I'm looking at seems pretty similar to yours. It has 600 on the engine and a non waas 430. How much do you think yours is valued at? Just trying to get a ballpark of what these birds are going for.
 
Mine has 1200 on the engine, no GPS, dual VORs (one with a glideslope) and a DME. It has a CGR-30P engine monitor and is fully ADS-B in and out. Has an ADF as well. I would guess I could get $60k for mine (which, as you'll hear, some people think is ridiculously high for something that goes 115 kts/hour).
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Mine has 1200 on the engine, no GPS, dual VORs (one with a glideslope) and a DME. It has a CGR-30P engine monitor and is fully ADS-B in and out. Has an ADF as well. I would guess I could get $60k for mine (which, as you'll hear, some people think is ridiculously high for something that goes 115 kts/hour).
Click to expand...
This one is going for a little bit more, but I was hoping you say 60. I think that's about right from what I've been seeing out there. My buddies with the retracts are making fun of me as well for wanting something that expensive and so slow as they call it, but I think oddly enough, your paying for economy and low maintenance which these days = coolness.
 
Ryanb said:
I'd just be curious to know what was replaced and what wasn't. Let us know how it goes!
Click to expand...
Saw the plane today Ryan, really nice. Found out that it got a new crank a few years back on a prop strike tear down. So I guess the worn out crank isn't a concern.
 
MikeAlfa said:
Saw the plane today Ryan, really nice. Found out that it got a new crank a few years back on a prop strike tear down. So I guess the worn out crank isn't a concern.
Click to expand...
Great! That's good news. What's the move from here? Thanks for the report.
 
Ryanb said:
Great! That's good news. What's the move from here? Thanks for the report.
Click to expand...
Take another look this week (it was raining ice today and the cowl was frozen shut) and maybe test fly it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top