would you buy a plane that has a "substantial" accident history?

WannFly

WannFly

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
6,553
Location
KLZU
Display Name
Display name:
Priyo
so came across a 172 that i kinda like (TT 4400, Tach 3800, 600 SMOH in 2006), has everything i want and price matches with AOPA VREF calculation, but has a "substantial" damage history in 1977 (as coined by NTSB, non-fatal). read through NTSB report and looks like the pilot misjudged speed and distance on a 900 ft strip and went through wires / fence... the engine had to be removed due to prop strike, damage on wing etc, but since has been fixed and been flying. then there is another major repair for the wing and replaced windshield a yr and a half later, but i cant find it in NTSB database, so not sure what the heck happened.
low SMOH with compression in mid 70s, but the OH was done in 2006, and then it flew for a while, but for last 4-5 years the average i can figure out is about 30 hrs /year.

from what i hear from the broker, the owner is still flying it... so the q is, would you buy a plane with such a damage history or would you rather find one with no damage / minor damage? its been flying for last 30 years... so something tells me there is no serious uncovered damage .. but again i have no idea about planes. ... what do you guys think?
 
WannFly said:
but has a "substantial" damage history in 1977 (as coined by NTSB, non-fatal)
Click to expand...

Probably. I rebuilt and flew one that the FAA had labelled "Destroyed".
(a liability avoidance maneuver on the part of the prev. owner)
 
With thorough pre-buy and a minor price adjustment, yes, buy it.

Many will say no way, but that only helps your price negotiation.
 
The plane I owned before my current one had "substantial" damage...in 1969. It was funny to read the 1969 log book entry, because it was only like three sentences: "Replaced engine, prop, and engine mount. Replaced nose gear. Repainted aircraft."
Done.
 
How many times is a "typical" airplane involved in an accident during its lifetime... this one's been "pre-disastered!" LOL...

I'd fly it to check for the rigging, especially. My previous club had an airplane like that. It was rebuilt and was a pretty little Skyhawk... But flying it was not pretty... I was never able to get the thing "hands off trimmed" on the long. axis and I always felt like I was flying sideways even though the ball was centered.... I hated that thing!
 
FlySince9 said:
How many times is a "typical" airplane involved in an accident during its lifetime... this one's been "pre-disastered!" LOL...

I'd fly it to check for the rigging, especially. My previous club had an airplane like that. It was rebuilt and was a pretty little Skyhawk... But flying it was not pretty... I was never able to get the thing "hands off trimmed" on the long. axis and I always felt like I was flying sideways even though the ball was centered.... I hated that thing!
Click to expand...
A reasonably good A&P should have been able to get it back in rig. My cherokee tends to list to the right. Takes some time and effort because the shop needs to add a tiny weight to the wing on the left, I fly it to see the result, then repeat until balanced. Next, balancing the tail, repeat. Now back with the wing, and so on.
 
FlySince9 said:
How many times is a "typical" airplane involved in an accident during its lifetime... this one's been "pre-disastered!" LOL...

I'd fly it to check for the rigging, especially. My previous club had an airplane like that. It was rebuilt and was a pretty little Skyhawk... But flying it was not pretty... I was never able to get the thing "hands off trimmed" on the long. axis and I always felt like I was flying sideways even though the ball was centered.... I hated that thing!
Click to expand...
The rental here is like that. I refuse to fly it now. Sketchy af
 
The last plane I bought had an "off runway" event less than 10 hours after it was built, had to re-skin the wings, etc. Didn't bother me. Though I will say the accident occurred in 1965. Nothing else happened in the 50 years since that event.

The guy that I bought that plane from bought a Mooney that had a belly up landing but was repaired.

Key things that I look for when even considering a "substantially" damaged plane are:

How long ago did it happen
What were the steps to remedy the problem
Are the logs complete and was the work done by a skilled professional

I've seen where people even mark the plane up to pay for the accident. I don't care how nice your 1960 something Cessna 150 is, it's not worth 50K.
 
The tail section was torn off my plane when someone snagged a fence. That was about 50 years ago. Holding together pretty well since then. I guess it all depends on how well it was repaired. It would be undocumented damage that would concern me.
 
How many hours per year since the damage? But unless it has been a ramp queen with little flight time, I wouldn't worry about damage that occurred over 40 years ago.

Assuming you get good results from a thorough pre-buy, and a price adjustment, then I think this plane makes much more sense than the other one with all the avioinics.

Good luck on your search.
 
Any parts that got replaced are newer than original. Maybe you should pay more.
 
My plane had a runaway fuel truck barrel into one of it's wings in the early 90s. Didn't worry me at all as it was repaired and flying for the past 15 years when I bought it
 
I agree. Old time damage and flying fine since. I would expect it to be a little cheaper than a NDH plane, just cause you will have a little harder time selling it due to "damage". If it was just pranged and fixed with like 20hrs on it, maybe depending on who, what and how much.

good luck.
 
I used to fly a 182 that just before I got to it someone tried a short field landing in a short field and ripped off the right wing.

In Alaska I used to fly a 206 that had sat upside down outside of Barrow for a year.

I drive a car that was rebuilt from being "totaled".

The two planes flew well and I had no qualms about flying them.

I drove the car from Alaska back to New Mexico without problems.

If you like it, then it might be worth paying a little more to get a thorough pre-buy.
 
I'd do some research on the shops that did the repair work and talk to them. Maybe they will even show you the work orders. There are some shops that specialize in major repairs; they have the experience, the jigs, the judgment, etc. In contrast, a local A&P working out of a one-stall hangar may not have any of that.

Second, I would not pay Vref. There should be some deduction for major damage. Even if you don't care, the next potential owner might care a lot. You are buying a somewhat depreciated asset; don't pay full price, deduct for the depreciation.
 
Depends, how was it repaired and documented, if both of those are right, plus it happened decades and probably 1,000+ flight hours ago, it wouldn't bother me one bit, and depending on who owns it it likley won't get you a lower price, then again it is a 172, the most produced plane in history, so there is a huge supply to pick from.

By the way, planes over 20 years old, especially starter/trainer planes like a 172 ALL have damage history, just a matter of its documented or not.
 
tawood said:
The plane I owned before my current one had "substantial" damage...in 1969. It was funny to read the 1969 log book entry, because it was only like three sentences: "Replaced engine, prop, and engine mount. Replaced nose gear. Repainted aircraft."
Done.
Click to expand...

Saw a Tiger log entry that said "Replaced P/N 5200004-503 and -504 with new."

Those are the wings.
 
well, i have been going through the logs and something is not adding up, the 2nd damage repair happened over a year after the first strike and i cant find it anywhere on NTSB. the broker doesnt know either.

more importantly i found another one close to home, almost same feature, no AP though, its been flown on a regular basis, has more 2k TT and about 200 more SMOH and is priced about the same as the one 1400 miles away. i am driving to the one close to home to take a look. its a :

1979 172N with a total time of 5166, 873 on the engine SMOH, This aircraft has a 2550 gross (Penn Yan) with a useful load of 1063! Garmin 530W, GMA340 audio pnl, King KX155 nav/com, KX76A xponder, EI digital CHT/EGT 4 place intercom
 
WannFly said:
well, i have been going through the logs and something is not adding up, the 2nd damage repair happened over a year after the first strike and i cant find it anywhere on NTSB. the broker doesnt know either.

more importantly i found another one close to home, almost same feature, no AP though, its been flown on a regular basis, has more 2k TT and about 200 more SMOH and is priced about the same as the one 1400 miles away. i am driving to the one close to home to take a look. its a :

1979 172N with a total time of 5166, 873 on the engine SMOH, This aircraft has a 2550 gross (Penn Yan) with a useful load of 1063! Garmin 530W, GMA340 audio pnl, King KX155 nav/com, KX76A xponder, EI digital CHT/EGT 4 place intercom
Click to expand...

Sounds nice! How much is the seller asking for it? There is something to be said for a regularly flying airplane. Those that just sit can be problematic, especially in certain parts of the country. 1063 useful load is massive and the equipment sounds nice too!
 
Caramon13 said:
Sounds nice! How much is the seller asking for it? There is something to be said for a regularly flying airplane. Those that just sit can be problematic, especially in certain parts of the country. 1063 useful load is massive and the equipment sounds nice too!
Click to expand...

$55,700. the one away from home was being regularly flown till about 2013, then may be 20 / 15 hrs per yr. and thats one other concern i have. i will look at the logs tomorrow and take some pics and post here .. lemme know what you all think. This specific one has never been a trainer (so i will be the first one to use it as trainer :d), they use it to monitor forest fire etc, basically rented out to the county or something to that effect. its based in mid-west, so -20 is nothing new to this bird
 
WannFly said:
$55,700. the one away from home was being regularly flown till about 2013, then may be 20 / 15 hrs per yr. and thats one other concern i have. i will look at the logs tomorrow and take some pics and post here .. lemme know what you all think. This specific one has never been a trainer (so i will be the first one to use it as trainer :d), they use it to monitor forest fire etc, basically rented out to the county or something to that effect. its based in mid-west, so -20 is nothing new to this bird
Click to expand...

Hmm, not too bad. For that other plane, 15/20 hours a year is less than a couple a month. I'd be asking about oil changes and a host of other questions on that one.

An autopilot is really no big deal, even if you are going for your instrument. In fact (even though I had one) I'd argue NOT having an autopilot while training for IFR really forces you to pay attention, especially in the soup. I found myself getting lazy with it.

The bigger thing in that other plane is the 530W Garmin, if it really is the WAAS unit that's gonna help out a ton. Make sure you check that out. I had a GMA 340, good panel. About the only thing you would have to worry about is ADS-B compliance.
 
Caramon13 said:
Sounds nice! How much is the seller asking for it? There is something to be said for a regularly flying airplane. Those that just sit can be problematic, especially in certain parts of the country. 1063 useful load is massive and the equipment sounds nice too!
Click to expand...
That sounds an awful lot like the plane I sold a few years ago, except mine had all Garmin instead of the King stuff. I sold it for ~$60k.

The only problem I had was that I couldn't keep CHTs under 400 unless I ran it at about 60% power and quite rich. That was frustrating because I spent many thousands trying to get various A&Ps and IAs to determine why it always ran hot. Even after the engine failed and was replace.

The thing I like most about my Bonanza (besides the speed) is that I can run LOP and even on climb, CHT never exceeds 370 and in cruise runs around 300. It is better equipped than the Cessna, gets 55% more speed with only30% greater gph.
 
JOhnH said:
That sounds an awful lot like the plane I sold a few years ago, except mine had all Garmin instead of the King stuff. I sold it for ~$60k.

The only problem I had was that I couldn't keep CHTs under 400 unless I ran it at about 60% power and quite rich. That was frustrating because I spent many thousands trying to get various A&Ps and IAs to determine why it always ran hot. Even after the engine failed and was replace.

The thing I like most about my Bonanza (besides the speed) is that I can run LOP and even on climb, CHT never exceeds 370 and in cruise runs around 300. It is better equipped than the Cessna, gets 55% more speed with only30% greater gph.
Click to expand...

Nice! I sold my Piper for about the same amount as the Cessna 172 that @WannFly is talking about. I ALMOST got my hands on a sweet Bonanza a month ago, but someone was quicker on the phone.

What part of FL do you fly from?
 
Caramon13 said:
Hmm, not too bad. For that other plane, 15/20 hours a year is less than a couple a month. I'd be asking about oil changes and a host of other questions on that one.

An autopilot is really no big deal, even if you are going for your instrument. In fact (even though I had one) I'd argue NOT having an autopilot while training for IFR really forces you to pay attention, especially in the soup. I found myself getting lazy with it.

The bigger thing in that other plane is the 530W Garmin, if it really is the WAAS unit that's gonna help out a ton. Make sure you check that out. I had a GMA 340, good panel. About the only thing you would have to worry about is ADS-B compliance.
Click to expand...

yeah i am not too worried about the AP. this one has 530W as well. none have ADSB, so that will be a cost if i choose down the road, i am in Class Delta airspace.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Probably. I rebuilt and flew one that the FAA had labelled "Destroyed".
(a liability avoidance maneuver on the part of the prev. owner)
Click to expand...
Substantial damage is simply what the NTSB investigator thinks it is. In most cases that is any damage that would require a 337 be filed as a major repair.
 
WannFly said:
so came across a 172 that i kinda like (TT 4400, Tach 3800, 600 SMOH in 2006), has everything i want and price matches with AOPA VREF calculation, but has a "substantial" damage history in 1977 (as coined by NTSB, non-fatal). read through NTSB report and looks like the pilot misjudged speed and distance on a 900 ft strip and went through wires / fence... the engine had to be removed due to prop strike, damage on wing etc, but since has been fixed and been flying. then there is another major repair for the wing and replaced windshield a yr and a half later, but i cant find it in NTSB database, so not sure what the heck happened.
low SMOH with compression in mid 70s, but the OH was done in 2006, and then it flew for a while, but for last 4-5 years the average i can figure out is about 30 hrs /year.

from what i hear from the broker, the owner is still flying it... so the q is, would you buy a plane with such a damage history or would you rather find one with no damage / minor damage? its been flying for last 30 years... so something tells me there is no serious uncovered damage .. but again i have no idea about planes. ... what do you guys think?
Click to expand...


I've been doing transport category jet stuff for 10 years with more years than that on small airplanes for fun. I've seen several wrecked jets repaired. I've even flown a 152 that was totaled by an insurance company and later resurrected. That 152 was later owned by an FAA inspector who sold it to a CFI whom I rented it from.

If a quality repair was accomplished verified by inspection, and it test flys fine, I don't see a problem.
 
Caramon13 said:
Nice! I sold my Piper for about the same amount as the Cessna 172 that @WannFly is talking about. I ALMOST got my hands on a sweet Bonanza a month ago, but someone was quicker on the phone.

What part of FL do you fly from?
Click to expand...
KOMN (Ormond Beach).
 
no accident or incident report on the 172N thats close to home.. i am getting excited!!
 
For any purchase, buy the FAA CDRom disk with the airplane history. It has all the paperwork, including filed 337s that may have escaped and run away from the log books. The disks are only a few bucks. If you don't already have the name of the owner when damage occurred, the paper trail will tell you.
 
WannFly said:
well, i have been going through the logs and something is not adding up, the 2nd damage repair happened over a year after the first strike and i cant find it anywhere on NTSB. the broker doesnt know either.

more importantly i found another one close to home, almost same feature, no AP though, its been flown on a regular basis, has more 2k TT and about 200 more SMOH and is priced about the same as the one 1400 miles away. i am driving to the one close to home to take a look. its a :

1979 172N with a total time of 5166, 873 on the engine SMOH, This aircraft has a 2550 gross (Penn Yan) with a useful load of 1063! Garmin 530W, GMA340 audio pnl, King KX155 nav/com, KX76A xponder, EI digital CHT/EGT 4 place intercom
Click to expand...

Might not have been a NTSB worthy event, also finding things fixed but not on the NTSB isn't the concern, it's when you find something on the NTSB or elsewhere that's not reflected in the LOGS.

If they are the same price, I'd get the better equipped (price installing a AP) and lower time one (price a OH), I'm still not seeing a issue with what's in those logs presuming a good prebuy, spending a little extra focus in those areas of course.
 
If you're truly interested in the aircraft, I'd start by subscribing to Vref Online as their valuation can be considerably different than AOPA's Vref (and in your favor.)

I agree with Airdale - get the title reports from FAA, or if you are in a hurry, some services like Aeroreports can provide the docs to you (but it's more expensive.)

In terms of the damage... if it's been that long ago, and the plane is flying, it's likely to have been repaired well. But definitely use it as a negotiating position if, for nothing else, that the seller's pool of buyers have narrowed because of those that won't consider a previously damaged plane. But make sure the logbooks are complete and document the repair as well as all maintenance (especially recent maintenance) of the aircraft.
 
Yes I would buy an aircraft with damage history....in fact I've done so twice. The first damaged aircraft had a wing replaced with a brand new wing when it was two years old. Imagine that? :eek:

Second plane had a nose gear collapse....fixed with a rebuilt engine and prop and a few new gear linkages.

Any aircraft with more than 10 years wear and tear.....is going to have repairs. It really shouldn't be a big deal, provided the repairs were performed properly.
 
Thanks all for chiming in, I am going to take all logs to my A/P and sew what he thinks. The one close to home is 180hp with useful load of more than 1000lbs, some pann Yan STC, the one with damage history is 160hp, something to think about

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Don't rely on reported incidents to determine damage history. Sometimes the tree does fall in the woods when there is no one there to hear it. And it does make a sound.

If the logbook and seller are reporting two things happened, one of which not NTSB recorded, they are OVER reporting. Those aren't the people to be wary of. it's the damage that gets squeeked by on the "No NTSB report" theroy that I would run away from.
 
WannFly said:
... The one close to home is 180hp with useful load of more than 1000lbs, some pann Yan STC, the one with damage history is 160hp, something to think about ...
Click to expand...
Indeed! Lots of guys here with more 172 experience than me, but with about 50 hours in 180hps and 10 in 160s I would never even consider buying a 160. The performance improvement is significant. The NDH for the 180 is frosting on the cake and, of course, we here on POA don't have to worry about small things like price differences when we are offering opinions.
 
57 hrs flown since Apr 01, 2013 (the one away from home) ... :(:( i will take the logs to my A/P. but not feeling too exited
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top