Aircraft age how old is to old

RyanShort1 said:
You know, I don't consider all of those "improvements." My old straight tail 172 was way more fun to fly than later models, O-300, narrow gear, and all. In fact, as a more experienced pilot and aerial photographer I happen to prefer the narrow gear.
Click to expand...

Agreed - personally, I love the O-300, such a reliable and smooth engine. And the manual flaps? Yes please. I'm in a 172S G1000 arrangement now and I still prefer many many things about the early 172 models over it. As others have mentioned, some of the worst planes I've been in were the rental line late 90's models such as the 172R.

Heck just look at all the DHC 2/3 running these days up in the bush...
 
This is a good question for people like myself considering ownership. I think it boils down to what you are comfortable with, myself I prefer newer over old. Something with less hours appeals to me, I do understand that there is a fine line between a underutilized airplane and low hours. Sitting around in a hangar for extended periods of time is not good for mechanical things. In my case I am considering acquiring a 182 and my choices are a 30 year old Q series or step up to the S or T series. There are advantages to both and arguments can be made for either but in the end I am more comfortable with a 15 year old airplane than a 30 year old airplane.
 
RyanShort1 said:
You know, I don't consider all of those "improvements." My old straight tail 172 was way more fun to fly than later models, O-300, narrow gear, and all. In fact, as a more experienced pilot and aerial photographer I happen to prefer the narrow gear.
Click to expand...

That.

Also compare a IO550ed U206, to a new 206 for backcountry ops.
 
Flyfeld said:
This is a good question for people like myself considering ownership. I think it boils down to what you are comfortable with, myself I prefer newer over old. Something with less hours appeals to me, I do understand that there is a fine line between a underutilized airplane and low hours. Sitting around in a hangar for extended periods of time is not good for mechanical things. In my case I am considering acquiring a 182 and my choices are a 30 year old Q series or step up to the S or T series. There are advantages to both and arguments can be made for either but in the end I am more comfortable with a 15 year old airplane than a 30 year old airplane.
Click to expand...
I used to think like you, then I owned a pristine plane from 1942 with 2000tt, and it changed my mind. A person might "feel" more comfortable with a newer plane, but the age of a plane means very little.
 
Lowflynjack said:
Yep, according to her I'm one rich pilot. I should have offered to sell it to her for half of what she thought it was worth!
Click to expand...
When I had the Fairchild at AWO for the fly-in A lady told me " you rich guys with your toys" I told her " some of us are smart enough to have nice things" she stomped off properly insulted :)
 
When the resale value of the make and model isn't worth the cost of up keep. It's probably "too old".
 
Tom-D said:
When I had the Fairchild at AWO for the fly-in A lady told me " you rich guys with your toys" I told her " some of us are smart enough to have nice things" she stomped off properly insulted :)
Click to expand...

Ha!! :D
 
Wrong question. The proper question is "How new is too new?"

There's no such thing as a "too old" airplane. :D
 
I think there is a term called mean time to failure MTF that applies to airframes. Metal fatigue and so forth. But I could be wrong.
 
Blueangel said:
I think there is a term called mean time to failure MTF that applies to airframes. Metal fatigue and so forth. But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Correct. Some planes have a hard limit. The Cirrus has a 12,000 hour limit that may or may not be increased as the fleet ages and they accrue data, according to the FAA. The Piper Tomahawk has a wing-life limit of 11,000 hours.

Then you have guys like Richard Collins who scrapped his P-210 when he was done flying it. He had asked a Cessna Engineer how many hours he would fly this plane based on the testing they had done and he said 10,000 hours. This wasn't really based on anything. Richard had 9000 hours on his (he bought it new) and decided rather than selling it, he would scrap it. In his opinion, it was worn out.
 
Good to know! I'm looking for data on Beechcraft Bonanza airframe data. Looked at the Bonanza ABS site but having trouble finding this. Any idea here? I'm shopping for one and see tons with 9-14,000 airframe hours but that's too high for my comfort level as a buyer.
 
Blueangel said:
I think there is a term called mean time to failure MTF that applies to airframes. Metal fatigue and so forth. But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
yeah but.....the design parameters are no where near the fatigue limits.
 
Hopefully at least 5 years. I am planning to buy one to fly for long time without major upgrade. Hence a Bonanza! Twins are nice but twice as much to own and maintain. No need for six seater right now.
 
I wouldn't worry too much bout the total time from a safety standpoint....just a purchase price point of view.
 
Age doesn't matter much. It's all about how well the aircraft is maintained. There are two year old airplanes in terrible shape and 70 year old airplanes in mint condition.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Age doesn't matter much. It's all about how well the aircraft is maintained. There are two year old airplanes in terrible shape and 70 year old airplanes in mint condition.
Click to expand...
You do realize that aluminum age hardens.. ?
 
Flyfeld said:
...In my case I am considering acquiring a 182 and my choices are a 30 year old Q series or step up to the S or T series. There are advantages to both and arguments can be made for either but in the end I am more comfortable with a 15 year old airplane than a 30 year old airplane.
Click to expand...
I would be at least as concerned with T/O & landing cycles as chronological age. In Alaska, where I have done most of my flying, the Cessna 185 is still the gold standard for commercial bush operators. There are a lot of pristine, well equipped 185's running around up there, as well as a lot of less-pristine but still perfectly airworthy and capable ones. They fly *lots* of hours in all kinds of conditions. The last 185 was built in 1981, I think.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
yeah but.....the design parameters are no where near the fatigue limits.
Click to expand...
Generally true but I would carefully check landing struts, I imagine of all the metal parts, this takes the most stress.
Then there is the issue of corrosion...which is really what you need to be concerned with.
 
teejayevans said:
Generally true but I would carefully check landing struts, I imagine of all the metal parts, this takes the most stress.
Then there is the issue of corrosion...which is really what you need to be concerned with.
Click to expand...
None of those items are life limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top