1971 C150L - High Airframe Time + Prop Strike - Good Buy?

O

ogouda

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 12, 2022
Messages
1
Display Name
Display name:
ogouda
Looking at a 1971 C150L to build PPL hours and it's listed for 40k USD with the following details:
- Airframe time: 11,000 hours
- Prop Time Since Overhaul: 10 hours (after strike)
- Engine Time Since Overhaul: 10 hours (after strike)
- Annual inspection completed Jan 2022
- Situation: Plane sold by AME who bought off his customer after the prop strike and did the engine overhaul and annual inspection himself. The propeller was sent out for repair. It seems obvious it's for a quick profit.

I am not experienced in this field and I do not know whether AMEs can cut corners just to get a plane sold without doing proper repairs so two main questions:
1) How high is the risk here and what can I do to mitigate it?
2) Would you pay the list price for this plane and what valuation would you provide?

Thank you in advance!
 
AME? A&P/IA, perhaps.
Pre-purchase inspection is your friend; little else to do to mitigate disaster. Does it have the instrumentation/radios that you want? There are some for half that that run but may need work that you could "customize" if not.
 
Depends what the condition of the engine was after the strike (and just what the strike does). The mandate is for an inspection after any prop strike like that, but it doesn't necessarily need to be an overhaul unless other conditions indicate that it would be necessary. What does it have for avionics? $40K for a bare bones 150 isn't a tremendous price.
 
Seems a lot for a 150 of that vintage. The new overhaul is a plus, but a field overhaul by a random A&P doesn't add as much value as a factory or big name shop overhaul.

What does Continental require for a prop strike? Lycoming requires a teardown so you might as well overhaul it unless it's near new.
 
I’m new to aviation but my mechanic always says to avoid high time airframe. You’re paying at/above market price (unless it has amazing avionics) for a high time airplane. I would move on. Get something with less than 5000 hours or so, will save you on maintenance later on.
 
Just my opinion but there isn't a 150 out there worth $40K. One with 11,000 hours probably was in a flight school at some point and had a lot of rough landings. Even with a newish engine and that is assuming it wasn't slapped together by someone who didn't have a clue what they were doing.
 
DFH65 said:
Just my opinion but there isn't a 150 out there worth $40K. One with 11,000 hours probably was in a flight school at some point and had a lot of rough landings. Even with a newish engine and that is assuming it wasn't slapped together by someone who didn't have a clue what they were doing.
Click to expand...

Che I put the listings… it seems crazy but 40s are the norm for low engine time…
 
I would ask to see the NDT (non-destructive testing) on all engine components. It should have been done by a trained NDT tech, with the right equipment, not the mechanic. In Canada it MUST be done by a trained and licensed NDT technician. A prop strike can start cracks in the crank, case, con rods, pistons, gears, and can damage magnetos, alternators and vacuum pumps. Just using a dial indicator on the prop flange is no longer acceptable.

I had a crank break in flight, due to some long-ago prop strike that wasn't properly addressed. It's no fun.

CAR 571, Schedule II, Item 8. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-96-433/page-51.html#h-993067

upload_2022-2-12_18-10-31.png

If you can't verify that the inspection was properly done, by qualified people, I'd walk away.
 
The field overhaul would concern me also. I’d want to see the specifics. Cylinders, new or overhauled, etc. The airframe hours aren’t alarming for a 150.
 
Dan alluded to the practice of just dialing the Crank post-strike was insufficient and passé. However; there are still aircraft in operation with this situation.
One reason is that it was commonplace for an Insurance company to require a
“Supervised tear down “ to provide coverage. If no strike damage was found the insurance folks provided zero compensation.
A big concern is unreported prop strikes . New or overhauled prop in the log sends the warning flag up. I suggest to my folks to have the prop shop state “ No Prop Strike” in their overhaul records.
 
A field overhaul is not the same as an actual overhaul, e.g. the SMOH isn't reset to "0." Check the log book.

There isn't much out there right now for 40k. Closest you could come are the early straight tail Cessna 172 (love 'em) unless you want to venture into experimentals.
 
wheaties said:
A field overhaul is not the same as an actual overhaul, e.g. the SMOH isn't reset to "0." Check the log book.
Click to expand...
For US regs, no idea what an "actual overhaul" is but it doesn't get a reset to "0" either. Anything with the word "overhaul" is the same.
If you want "0" time and a new logbook, the word is "rebuilt"
 
Last edited:
ogouda said:
I am not experienced in this field and I do not know whether AMEs can cut corners just to get a plane sold without doing proper repairs so two main questions:
1) How high is the risk here and what can I do to mitigate it?
2) Would you pay the list price for this plane and what valuation would you provide?

Thank you in advance!
Click to expand...
Ask to see a list of parts that were replaced during the engine overhaul. A disassemble, inspect and reassemble with the same parts doesn't add any value or life to the engine so it would be worth what it was the day before the prop strike.
If the airplane has been properly returned to service and passes a third party eval, I wouldn't have any issues. Prop needs paperwork.
You'll have to decide if it's worth the price.
 
ogouda said:
Looking at a 1971 C150L to build PPL hours and it's listed for 40k USD with the following details:
- Airframe time: 11,000 hours
- Engine Time Since Overhaul: 10 hours (after strike)
- Situation: Plane sold by AME who bought off his customer after the prop strike and did the engine overhaul and annual inspection himself. The propeller was sent out for repair. It seems obvious it's for a quick profit.
Click to expand...

I've bolded what I think are the relevant pieces. 40k is a fair market price in the US for the airplane but my impression is the Canadian market is lower.

What concerns me are
1) 11k hours overall. That's a lot and the maintenance costs are going to reflect that.
2) a flipped airplane. Were corners cut in the overhaul so he could make profit? Always a concern and there's not a solid way of knowing what was done.


mandm said:
Here is a 150L asking 22k.
https://www.barnstormers.com/classified-1718549-1973-CESSNA-150L-RUNS-GREAT.html
Click to expand...

Yes, but did you catch that it's 1420 SMOH on a 1500 1800 TBO engine? When you're buying a plane that close to TBO, you need to also have the funds to do the overhaul. That said, 22k is also a fair price. Only 7 hours flight time since last Sept?

Edit, corrected fat finger 1500 tbo - should be 1800.
 
Last edited:
martym said:
why would an O-200 have a 1500 hr TBO ? ? ? :(
Click to expand...

Oops, 1800, typo. That's still a couple of years to TBO, so you need to be prepared to spend that at any time.

Bathman said:
11000 hours isn't high for a C150
Click to expand...

It's high for any plane, but that many hours will indicate more maintenance. High time wears planes out.
 
ogouda said:
I am not experienced in this field
Click to expand...
To mitigate your risk, the person you should be having this conversation with is the APIA you plan to use to maintain any new aircraft purchase. I can’t recommend this enough: select your APIA before your buy an aircraft and get him involved with the purchase up front. Its their opinion of the aircraft that counts.

As to it being a high time aircraft, it highly depends on HOW that aircraft was maintained for those 11,000 hrs. It is not an automatic death sentence in all cases. I’ve worked on a number of high time airplanes and helicopters which in most cases are in better condition than an equivalent low time version. Each aircraft is a mirror of its owner and it will reflect in those aircraft with owners who are engaged, proactive, and follow published recommendations regardless of total time. And especially in this market it becomes even more important as “high-time” aircraft are slowly moving into the “norm” category from the “exception” category.

Now whether the seller APIA is doing this for a profit I would hope so. At one time I repaired aircraft for “a profit” too so I don’t quite follow your statement on the matter. As to what corners could be cut, engine overhauls, annual inspections, prop overhauls all have regulatory requirements to follow in order for the seller APIA to sign off. If he doesn’t follow those then the aircraft would be unairworthy and the seller APIA would be in violation of the FARs. So this is where your APIA would come in and assist you in making this determination.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
What does Continental require for a prop strike? Lycoming requires a teardown
Click to expand...
Both Lycoming and TCM have SBs on prop strike requirements with Lycoming prop strikes under an AD for most engine models (not all) that require specific checks without a complete teardown as I recall. So for Part 91 aircraft only Lycoming has a "mandatory" inspection requirement.
wheaties said:
A field overhaul is not the same as an actual overhaul, e.g. the SMOH isn't reset to "0." Check the log book.
Click to expand...
FYI: Any overhaul performed outside the OEM is considered a field overhaul regardless if by a shop or independent AP. In addition, all overhauls have the same regulatory requirements which when complied with allow the overhauler to TSO: 0 the engine with the existing TT. The only process to zero out both the TT and TSO is via a “rebuilt” process which can be only performed by the OEM or their agent.
 
Bathman said:
11000 hours isn't high for a C150
Click to expand...

Yes, it’s a lot of hours but definitely not uncommon or even alarming for a 150 that’s been used as a trainer. That part alone would not concern me, assuming it’s been well maintained.
 
It’s not uncommon for a trainer but many pilots will pass up on high airframe time so your resale bubble will be affected. For your first plane, this is a difficult purchase. Better to buy the 22k one, use it for 300-500 hours then sell it.
 
It's high for any plane, but that many hours will indicate more maintenance. High time wears planes out.
Click to expand...
The high time planes I used to fly at work were the ones over 40,000 hrs. I jumpseated on a Boeing freighter once that had 90,000. Asiana has a 74 freighter with 135,000. That would be "high time"
 
The small Continentals don't tolerate prop strikes well. Like I said, I had one fail in flight. The break showed some rust, indicating that it had started long before. I also had two cracked O-200 cranks after student mishaps.

Dialling it offers misplaced confidence. Period. That crank can distort enough to start a crack, then spring back and the flange dials fine.
 
martym said:
The high time planes I used to fly at work were the ones over 40,000 hrs. I jumpseated on a Boeing freighter once that had 90,000. Asiana has a 74 freighter with 135,000. That would be "high time"
Click to expand...
Common in large aircraft. They are designed and maintained for that sort of lifetime. And flown by professionals. A small airplane is a different animal altogether.
 
Sounds outrageous but a quick peruse shows $40K to not be out of the ballpark for a small primary trainer.. take a random look on Trade A Plane for them or Beech Musketeer

Personally I'd rather have something like this: https://www.trade-a-plane.com/searc...l=TOMAHAWK&listing_id=2393320&s-type=aircraft

But I prefer non Cessna, low wings, and the T tail is cool. Tomahawks are cool little planes and for the same price would be my vote over the Cessna


Dan Thomas said:
A small airplane is a different animal altogether
Click to expand...
I use the fact that Tigers, and a few others (including Cirrus) have wing lives at around 12K hours as a general litmus.. an airliner is not a comparable item at all. To that point though, I wonder what the realistic life limit of a GA plane is.. at least beyond which it is no longer economical or feasible to keep fixing / maintaining it. 12K hrs? 15K hrs? 30K hrs?
 
A number of of Bonanza’s operating at the 30K hour mark. Especially the old Lufthansa ones. I did a prebuy on one. The maintenance details were impressive.
 

Attachments

  • 39D539C2-268B-43EA-BFBD-EAD8494631B5.jpeg
    39D539C2-268B-43EA-BFBD-EAD8494631B5.jpeg
    72.5 KB · Views: 12
Tantalum said:
o that point though, I wonder what the realistic life limit of a GA plane is.. at least beyond which it is no longer economical or feasible to keep fixing / maintaining it. 12K hrs? 15K hrs? 30K hrs?
Click to expand...
It would depend on what you would prioritize as the limiting factor in making your determination. In general, I believe most unpressurized GA aircraft are all "on condition" and heavily dependent on operational history. That said there are a number of airplanes and helicopters still flying... and working well over 30,000 TT right now. So it would be hard to put a number on it.
 
To second Bells post.
At one time I performed the “ look phase” of an Annual on NxxxPU, a Piper Cadet (Warrior). When I looked at the logs I had to confirm the Tach Reading , twice.
The records indicated very high time but the common items that are affected did not reflect the logged hours.
“ Upon further review “ it was found that PU had been operated by Purdue University. Their maintenance program had replaced things like yoke u-joints and trim jackscrews SEVERAL times.
 
Tantalum said:
Tomahawks are cool little planes and for the same price would be my vote over the Cessna
Click to expand...
T-hawks have a 11k wing life but for ~$5000 + installation, one can buy an STC to extend the wing service life. Probably why that one is cheap(er)

.. an airliner is not a comparable item at all. To that point though, I wonder what the realistic life limit of a GA plane is.. at least beyond which it is no longer economical or feasible to keep fixing / maintaining it. 12K hrs? 15K hrs? 30K hrs?
Click to expand...
Just like an airliner, the feasibility ends when it's cheaper to replace it. Had a customer that bought a Wallace Menhaden 172 that had 25,000 hrs on it, definitely not the highest time airplane in their fleet at the time. Most of that time was racked up doing orbits over the GOM spotting Gulf menhaden for fishing boats.
I think the biggest maintenance item was removing the sliding pilot's window someone had installed and reinstalling an original hinged window. If flew fine. The owner flew it ~300 hrs and sold it to a startup flight school. As long as it was cheaper than buying a replacement, I'm sure it stayed in service.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top