Aircraft without ad's?...I found 1, is there more?

Aaron H

Aaron H

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
107
Display Name
Display name:
Aaron
I've been in the market for a reliable plane.
Been searching for the elusive bulletproof airframe.
In my search, one of my cfis mentioned that he use to instruct in a and ch2000 and it was close with no ad's.
Unfortunately, I need a little more baggage.

Does anyone else know of any other aircraft that doesn't have any ads?
I'm assuming less ads, more bulletproof, which equals cheaper maintenance. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks
Aaron
 
There are recurring ADs and one-time ADs. The one timers don’t cost the future owner a dime, assuming they’ve already been done. Some of the recurring are so infrequent or inexpensive as to not be a consideration. It depends.
 
The lack of ADs doesn't mean the aircraft will be maintenance free. It just means the equipment the manufacturer chose good appliances, It doesn't mean that equipment isn't worn out.
 
Well, actually, it means that the manufacturer already anticipated the continuing airworthiness problems and the FAA didn't need to issue a rulemaking to change it.
Lots of life-limited parts and things that need inspecting AS THE MANUFACTURER intended.
 
My Maule had 6 ADs against it...two for engine cooling, two because the factory had a bad run of fabric and tail wheel installation, one because somebody dropped a cigarette under the floorboards while flying, and one strut corrosion inspection that, while I never saw any problems on any of the airplanes I flew (whether Maule or Piper), I won't make light of.

One AD came out while I owned the airplane and took 15 minutes. The strut AD was recurring. None of the others showed up in any way in the 19 years I owned the airplane other than my IA researching and noting them in the logs at my first annual.

I wouldn't worry about ADs in general, but note any that will cost you, how much, and how often.
 
Aaron H said:
I've been in the market for a reliable plane.
Been searching for the elusive bulletproof airframe.
In my search, one of my cfis mentioned that he use to instruct in a and ch2000 and it was close with no ad's.
Unfortunately, I need a little more baggage.

Does anyone else know of any other aircraft that doesn't have any ads?
I'm assuming less ads, more bulletproof, which equals cheaper maintenance. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks
Aaron
Click to expand...
A better way of looking at it might be:

More ADs = more required research by you to make sure a large expense isn't looming.

Common aircraft, like Cessna 172s and PA28s, are easy to research their ADs. Less common can require a little more research, but its usually not too hard.
 
An AD doesn’t determine a particular aircraft to be reliable or not. It’s better to look at the maintenance history for the individual aircraft in question.
 
Thx all for the info.
Everyone's comments make great sense.
I was looking into a Cessna 150 and Piper Cherokee and both have tons of ads. I guess alot of it has to do with age also.

Let me rephrase the question.

I'm looking to get an airframe and motor combo that is as bulletproof as I can get for around 30k
Any suggestion?

Need to seat 2, be able to take off from a 2200 ft grass strip 500 ft elevation and a 1900 ft paved runway, and have enough baggage for 2 folding bikes and a bag for a few nights worth of clothes.

150s are good size wise except for they seem to be a little slow on paper. I fly our clubs 172r out of the grass stripe and on a hot day, with only 2 on board, I'm thankful I'm not in a 150.

Right now I'm leaning towards the Cherokee 140.
Anyone else have any suggestions?
Thx
 
Aaron H said:
Thx all for the info.
Everyone's comments make great sense.
I was looking into a Cessna 150 and Piper Cherokee and both have tons of ads. I guess alot of it has to do with age also.

Let me rephrase the question.

I'm looking to get an airframe and motor combo that is as bulletproof as I can get for around 30k
Any suggestion?

Need to seat 2, be able to take off from a 2200 ft grass strip 500 ft elevation and a 1900 ft paved runway, and have enough baggage for 2 folding bikes and a bag for a few nights worth of clothes.

150s are good size wise except for they seem to be a little slow on paper. I fly our clubs 172r out of the grass stripe and on a hot day, with only 2 on board, I'm thankful I'm not in a 150.

Right now I'm leaning towards the Cherokee 140.
Anyone else have any suggestions?
Thx
Click to expand...
As a former 150 owner, I would immediately cross that one off your list...unless you weigh 100 lbs. If you want to haul folding bikes, get a four place. Consider a tailwheel if you're flying off short grass fields. Pacer or a great bargain: Stinson.
 
Thx ta,
150 is crossed off

I was looking into the tripacer.
I don't have a tailwheel end.
 
The Cherokee 140 is about as bulletproof as you’ll get in that regard. Might be a little tight for two folding bikes, but I’d guess it depends how small they can fold. Other than that, I’d say it would fit your mission.
 
Aaron H said:
Thx ta,
150 is crossed off

I was looking into the tripacer.
I don't have a tailwheel end.
Click to expand...
The TW is not hard to get, especially when you already have one bought to train in (that's how I did it). But there's good tricycle gear planes that will meet your requirements too. I now own a PA28-140, and I would be careful on 2200 feet of grass with 2 people and bikes, as that is "pushing it" in the summer. If that grass gets long, and the tanks are full, you might not get out like that. A PA28-180 would be better for shorter fields and heavy weights.
I have two folding bikes that my girlfriend and I take with us most times. They fit no problem in the back. Mine's even a full sized folder, a Montague. I just had a second w&b for the plane without seats done...take the seats out/put the bikes in, easy shmeezy.
 
@Aaron H -- I totally misread your question. I thought you meant "no advertising" rather than "no airworthiness directives."

I was all ready to tell you to keep with the airport bulletin boards and word of mouth stuff. Many planes sell without advertising. Just like many jobs are only posted as a formality.
 
At your price range you can get a really top of the line TRIPACER PA-22. They will haul a lot more than most realize. go fly one, those ugly little aircraft are fun as hell.
 
Thx Ryan,
That's what I'm thinking also.
I'm also looking at lsalot shorter take distances, but the bikes would not be able to fit

Ta,
I do have a nice airport thats 3200 ft paved that's 20 min away. Could always leave from there when ever loaded.
 
ADs shouldn't scare you. Non-compliance with the AD's should.

And +1 on looking seriously at a Tri-Pacer.
 
Aaron H said:
Thx Ryan,
That's what I'm thinking also.
I'm also looking at lsalot shorter take distances, but the bikes would not be able to fit

Ta,
I do have a nice airport thats 3200 ft paved that's 20 min away. Could always leave from there when ever loaded.
Click to expand...
3200 paved is no problem. Actually, 1900 paved isn't too bad...but soft fields and grass have more drag than I usually give them credit for, and I've found when heavily loaded, 3000 feet of grass is easy, but 2000 is very, very tight.
 
Aaron H said:
I've been in the market for a reliable plane.
Been searching for the elusive bulletproof airframe.
In my search, one of my cfis mentioned that he use to instruct in a and ch2000 and it was close with no ad's.
Unfortunately, I need a little more baggage.

Does anyone else know of any other aircraft that doesn't have any ads?
I'm assuming less ads, more bulletproof, which equals cheaper maintenance. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks
Aaron
Click to expand...

Meyers 200D
http://www.meyersaircraft.org/meyers-200/
"The Meyers 200D has never had an in-flight structural failure and has no FAA mandated Airworthiness Directives (AD) against the airframe."
iu

iu

Anything else is just poor engineering.
 
Thx Tom,

I've been looking at the tripacer, but the take off run is greater than the Cherokee 140 (on paper anyway)

I'm reading the pacer is great for grass stripes.
The one website I visited to check takeoff distances was showing the 172r at 865, Cherokee 140 at 800, and tripacer at 1120.

Is this wrong?
 
The Meyers indeed has no AIRFRAME ADs, but boy you better look at that prop carefully. The Mac props have definite service limits on the blades. The ones with Hartzells have a pretty onerous AD as well, not to mention the crankshaft and cylinder AD and other on those IO-470D's.

The Meyers is a nice fast little plane but a little tight (and pricey).

As stated, the number of ADs have little to do with maintenance cost. My Navion has no repetitive airframe ADs. All of those were taken care of before I purchased it 20 years ago. The only ones that have come up since are the fuel valve (easily done in my case) and the Hartzell prop ($$$). AD support has been a drop in the bucket especially when you get around to factoring in an engine overhaul.
 
The Diamond DA20-C1 has zero airframe ADs, repeating or otherwise. The Continental IO-240 on it has only a few non-recurring ones. Prop has none as well.

As mentioned, the obsession with ADs has little to do with the overall cost of ownership/maintenance. Many ADs are simple inspections that must be done periodically and should be done whether the government forces you to or not.
 
Consider a Grumman Traveler. Less expensive than their Cheetah or Tiger brothers, but same cabin. Typical pricing is around 30K. Good 2 person + bags plane. The rear seat folds flat and gives an enormous cargo area. Don't try to put 4 people in unless they are light and have no baggage. I can fit 2 full size non-folding mountain bikes just by removing the front wheel, they get loaded through the sliding canopy.

The only recurring AD was 79-22-04, which required a detailed inspection of the aileron system every 100 hours, however an alternate method of compliance was approved in 2006 which just requires a one-time inspection to confirm that the aileron was manufactured to the correct contour. After doing the AMOC, the recurring AD no longer applies.

http://www.approachaviation.com/common_images/SI_06_01_AD_79_22_04_AMOC.pdf

https://www.controller.com/listings...21/1972-grumman-american-general-aa5-traveler
 
Aaron H said:
The one website I visited to check takeoff distances was showing the 172r at 865, Cherokee 140 at 800, and tripacer at 1120.

Is this wrong?
Click to expand...

Family used to have a TriPacer, nice planes. Not a huge baggage area tho. You can have a Tri-P with a 135, 150, or 160 HP engine installed in it, so make sure you are comparing performance for the correct version.
 
mondtster said:
As mentioned, the obsession with ADs has little to do with the overall cost of ownership/maintenance. Many ADs are simple inspections that must be done periodically and should be done whether the government forces you to or not.
Click to expand...
And there are lots of inspections that have to be done periodically without an AD. All an AD signifies is that the maintenance changed from what it was when the manufacturer certificated the aircraft.
 
Aaron H said:
Thx Tom,

I've been looking at the tripacer, but the take off run is greater than the Cherokee 140 (on paper anyway)

I'm reading the pacer is great for grass stripes.
The one website I visited to check takeoff distances was showing the 172r at 865, Cherokee 140 at 800, and tripacer at 1120.

Is this wrong?
Click to expand...

Don't believe that. Maybe a real old 135 HP Tripe might use that much runway, but the 150/160 will outperform the 172 in many ways. A Cherokee 140 is a runway eater.
 
The OP mentioned that a CH2000 had no ADs. That's a homebuilt, and if the FAA is like Transport Canada, they don't issue ADs on homebuilts. It's not a guarantee that there are no defects in the design.

Furthermore, there are many appliances in any airplane that could have ADs against them. I used to find a lot of them outstanding. Never addressed. When a seller says "All ADs complied with" I just laugh.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The OP mentioned that a CH2000 had no ADs. That's a homebuilt, and if the FAA is like Transport Canada, they don't issue ADs on homebuilts. It's not a guarantee that there are no defects in the design.
Click to expand...
The CH2000 is available as a certificated form. TC TA5CH issued in 2003.

The FAA keeps making rumbles about issuing ADs on homebuilts. Don't believe it will never happen.
 
Dan,
The tripacer was a 150hp model that stated that takeoff distance.

That's odd that the Cherokee came info first out it the 3, but in your experience, is the worst.
The website I visited was rising up aviation.
 
Slacktide,
The Grumman traveler sounds like it will fit my needs.
What's the stall speed?
I haven't been looking at the Grumman traveler because I know the other models have a high stall speed.
 
Aaron H said:
Slacktide,
The Grumman traveler sounds like it will fit my needs.
What's the stall speed?
I haven't been looking at the Grumman traveler because I know the other models have a high stall speed.
Click to expand...

Flaps up 62 MPH / 54 Knots. Flaps down 58 MPH / 50 Knots.

You are probably thinking of the original Yankee / AA-1, which was the two seater made from 1969 to 1971. It had a symmetrical airfoil, and higher stall speeds. All the other Grumman models (AA-1A, -1B, -1C, -5, -5A, -5B, and AG-5B) have a conventional airfoil.

For reference, I have an AA-5B Tiger. I go in and out of a 1,470' turf field at sea level regularly. It has a higher max gross weight than the AA-5 Traveller, so stall speeds are 56 / 53 knots.
 
Thx slacktide, will definitely look into them
 
The Cherokee fits your mission. It carries a load. I have two folding bikes I have taken often and have also taken quite a bit of camping gear in the plane (and stayed within limits). I have flown out of 2200 feet, no problem. You do have to watch density altitude on hot days. It is a great 2+2 airplane.

Edit: FYI, the cost of acquisition is just scratching the surface of aircraft ownership. There are lots of threads on this topic. If you buy a $30k plane be ready for a couple of years of catch up maintenance. Realize that you are not buying a newer, cherry plane at the top of the market. These things can kill you if you aren’t prepared to feed them properly.
 
Last edited:
John221us said:
Edit: FYI, the cost of acquisition is just scratching the surface of aircraft ownership. There are lots of threads on this topic. If you buy a $30k plane be ready for a couple of years of catch up maintenance. Realize that you are not buying a newer, cherry plane at the top of the market. These things can kill you if you aren’t prepared to feed them properly.
Click to expand...
For sure. You can buy twins and even some small jets for less than many singles, but the operating costs will eat you up.
 
Aaron H said:
I've been in the market for a reliable plane.
Been searching for the elusive bulletproof airframe.
In my search, one of my cfis mentioned that he use to instruct in a and ch2000 and it was close with no ad's.
Unfortunately, I need a little more baggage.

Does anyone else know of any other aircraft that doesn't have any ads?
I'm assuming less ads, more bulletproof, which equals cheaper maintenance. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks
Aaron
Click to expand...

That's right. I trained in a CH2000T and there are no AD's. It's purely a 91.205 airplane.

Even the TCDS states to look at 91.205 for the equipment list. Though, most of them came with a G430 so... You can pull that sucker out though as it's only an option. It's purely a trainer, as you say. The 40lb baggage max is... Paltry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top