Buying a plane with damage history

4

4RNB

Line Up and Wait
PoA Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2016
Messages
961
Display Name
Display name:
4RNB
Hello and thank you in advance for any assistance.

I am considering buying my 2nd plane, moving up from 172 to 182RG, maybe turbo. It seems many of the 182RGs have damage history, certainly of the ones on trade a plane. One in particular it happened in 1992. Some wing skins were replaced, normal stuff done on engine/prop. What advice would you offer me?

Big picture: My wife votes only for high wing for ease of entry and exit. I am a big guy so I like this also, don't fit in many planes. Mission is fun, want to go see the country. More speed would be nice. At the end of June I was to install all new avionics in my plane, it could just as well go in the next plane (confirmed with avionics shop).

I know that ongoing maintenance and insurance would cost more. I'd be inclined to do lots of service right away, things like rebuilding landing gear, new tires/tubes as much of this seems to have not been done in >10 years. Someone told me regular landing gear attention is great PM.

I expect that I could sell my plane for what it would take to buy this one! Others agree.

So, how to think of the damage history?
 
I hear what George stated above, but just as you are questioning it I too question the prior damage effect on value. As such, I believe prior damage has an effect.
 
With all respect, I have to agree with George on this one. Our R182 had been gear-up'd twice by the FBI early in her career. We researched the documentation, did a thorough pre-buy inspection, and brought her home. With any of them the key is to research the specific airframe you're interested in.

I wouldn't rush in to rebuilding the gear. As long as it's properly maintained (<<<< emphasis here) the gear is reliable, based on our history and that of several other RG folks we know. There are specs in the maint. manual to do so. Follow them.

You'll love the R182.... We're about 10 knots faster than even a PPONK (big-engined) fixed gear 182, and only give up about the same in cruise to our bud's 285 hp Deb. I can live with that for the lower fuel burn.

Ours is non-turbo'd. Unless you spend a lot of time in the mountains, the turbo is excess weight (humble opinion). We've been thu the Rockies enough to have a handle on that..

Jim
 
Last edited:
My 6XT had extensive damage to the lower surfaces when the first owner had a rough time trying to land at a ski resort. About 140 hours on the airframe when this occurred. It was repaired by a certified Piper repair center (Beegles) and was fully documented. All new Piper parts/paint. Lycoming inspection. She's flown another 14 years and 900+ hours since. Absolutely no issues regarding the accident whatsoever. During the pre-buy the accident/repair was something my A&P-IA discussed, but he said it looked well repaired and Beegles was, in his opinion, legendary. I've never regretted the purchase. Damage history, in my opinion, is often used as a negotiating technique and, in some cases, might be appropriate. I think it depends upon the damage and who repaired it.

I'm not sure why you think ongoing maintenance and insurance will cost more. If it was properly repaired, some parts are just newer than the rest of the airplane. But if MX has been deferred, it has nothing to do with damage history. Just poor ownership.
 
dfw11411 said:
My 6XT had extensive damage to the lower surfaces when the first owner had a rough time trying to land at a ski resort. About 140 hours on the airframe when this occurred. It was repaired by a certified Piper repair center (Beegles) and was fully documented. All new Piper parts/paint. Lycoming inspection. She's flown another 14 years and 900+ hours since. Absolutely no issues regarding the accident whatsoever. During the pre-buy the accident/repair was something my A&P-IA discussed, but he said it looked well repaired and Beegles was, in his opinion, legendary. I've never regretted the purchase. Damage history, in my opinion, is often used as a negotiating technique and, in some cases, might be appropriate. I think it depends upon the damage and who repaired it.

I'm not sure why you think ongoing maintenance and insurance will cost more. If it was properly repaired, some parts are just newer than the rest of the airplane. But if MX has been deferred, it has nothing to do with damage history. Just poor ownership.
Click to expand...

Cause the gear swings...
 
Jim Rosenow said:
…Our R182 had been gear-up'd twice by the FBI early in her career.

I wouldn't rush in to rebuilding the gear. As long as it's properly maintained (<<<< emphasis here) AND LOWERED BEFORE LANDING (<<<< extra special emphasis here) the gear is reliable…

Jim
Click to expand...

I helped.
 
^^^^^. I had almost gone back earlier and edited my post to include that the 2 gear-ups were operator malfunction. :)

An aside...The logs on an ex-FBI aircraft have some interesting entries....once maintenance was done in Puerto Rico!

Jim
 
Last edited:
Years ago I used to fly a 182 that someone tried to do an off airport landing. The result was the right wing was ripped off by a tree.

That was a sweet flying plane, I wish I could have bought it.
 
Mine was hit by a tornado when it had 200 hrs on it in 1990. Insurance totaled the airplane. My friend bought it from the insurance company and had it rebuilt. It is in the logs, repaired by 2 AP/IAs.

It only had 1400 hrs when I started flying it for my friend after it mostly sat for 10 years.
I bought it from my friend after flying it for 6 months. It flys nice and fast for a 172, I have flown it 1000 hrs so far.
005.jpg

The damage buffed out I guess? lol
IMG_73661.jpg
 
Last edited:
A plane that has been around that long, unless it was just stored in a hangar, it has damage history, just some are not logged as such, better to have it documented, make sure it was repaired properly, and you are good to go.

Resale, might hurt you with the new to aviation buyers, but everyone else has been on this ride before.
 
My current plane was damaged, and repaired long ago, no issues. A plane that I owned previously, was also damaged by an old owner, repaired, and no issues. Don't be scared to buy something if property fixed.
 
I agree with others who have advised to not be scared of damage history. I too would consider buying a plane with history. I'm simply saying that history is in the mind of potential buyers and as such affects the value. The fact that the op asked the question is proof that he's hesitant to pull the trigger on a plane with history. That hesitation in his mind, my mind and many others means fewer buyers and longer times in the market for aircraft with history.

These questions of damage history always seem to follow the same trajectory with some saying they would have no issues with it. Frequently it seems those individuals have spent their own money buying a plane with damage history already. Nothing wrong with that. As I said I told would buy a plane with history if other factors were right. One of those other factors is price.
 
If the damage was in 1992, and the airplane has been flying regularly since, no factor.
 
Damage history galore here, wing hasn't folded yet (and according to the FAA ADs, I should have died like six times already). Didn't buy it for top dollar, won't sell it for top dollar. Same flying memories made as those flying cherries, with more $ left for chicken and steak at the destination. TETO.
 
Gary Ward said:
Mine was hit by a tornado when it had 200 hrs on it in 1990. Insurance totaled the airplane. My friend bought it from the insurance company and had it rebuilt. It is in the logs, repaired by 2 AP/IAs.

It only had 1400 hrs when I started flying it for my friend after it mostly sat for 10 years.
I bought it from my friend after flying it for 6 months. It flys nice and fast for a 172, I have flown it 1000 hrs so far.
005.jpg

The damage buffed out I guess? lol
IMG_73661.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm impressed by the quality of the work performed to repair your plane. After all that damage, it didn't even need to be repainted!

:D
 
Curious. Why is there an apparent collective perception that a once damaged and repaired aircraft will never be the same or have future issues due to the repair? Is it due to personal experience, improper work, pilot lounge banter, legend....? Have seen many repaired airplanes/helicopters, some with extensive repairs, that I never once thought would be subpar to the original. In some cases I actually believe the repaired version to be better than the original version. Just interesting comments above.
 
Bell206 said:
Curious. Why is there an apparent collective perception that a once damaged and repaired aircraft will never be the same or have future issues due to the repair? Is it due to personal experience, improper work, pilot lounge banter, legend....? Have seen many repaired airplanes/helicopters, some with extensive repairs, that I never once thought would be subpar to the original. In some cases I actually believe the repaired version to be better than the original version. Just interesting comments above.
Click to expand...

If you had 2 identical vehicles in front of you and one had a salvage title, would you pay the same price for both?
 
FORANE said:
If you had 2 identical vehicles in front of you and one had a salvage title, would you pay the same price for both?
Click to expand...
No comparison. Vehicle repairs do not fall under federal regulation, require acceptable/approved data, require federally certified individual(s) to approve such repairs, and so on. By rule once the repair is complete the aircraft must meet its original condition so what would be the functional difference? I've repaired/sold a number of structural components but never offered a repair discount for those same reasons. Now if the repairs were improperly performed then that is a different issue and subject to those same rules. The comments above imply that simply because an aircraft was repaired the chances of something being "off" are elevated. I'm curious as to why.
 
FORANE said:
If you had 2 identical vehicles in front of you and one had a salvage title, would you pay the same price for both?
Click to expand...

The problem is, comparing a wrecked and repaired car to a wrecked and repaired aircraft is not a good comparison in many cases.
 
Bell206 said:
Curious. Why is there an apparent collective perception that a once damaged and repaired aircraft will never be the same or have future issues due to the repair? Is it due to personal experience, improper work, pilot lounge banter, legend....? Have seen many repaired airplanes/helicopters, some with extensive repairs, that I never once thought would be subpar to the original. In some cases I actually believe the repaired version to be better than the original version. Just interesting comments above.
Click to expand...

I’ve wondered if a lot of the aversion to “damage history” stems from inexperience with aircraft or the inability for some prospective buyers to distinguish good repairs from bad.

Since every aircraft has a story I’ve never worried too much about it too much as long as what I am looking at is nice and properly documented. Adequate documentation and having an aircraft in a truly legal configuration is far more important to me yet never seems to get mentioned or considered in aircraft purchase discussions. As a side note, that is probably one of the reasons we see repeated topics of the expensive first annual ownership experience. The guy with the big tires on the Cessna you offered guidance to comes to mind.
 
Bell206 said:
No comparison. Vehicle repairs do not fall under federal regulation, require acceptable/approved data, require federally certified individual(s) to approve such repairs, and so on. By rule once the repair is complete the aircraft must meet its original condition so what would be the functional difference? I've repaired/sold a number of structural components but never offered a repair discount for those same reasons. Now if the repairs were improperly performed then that is a different issue and subject to those same rules. The comments above imply that simply because an aircraft was repaired the chances of something being "off" are elevated. I'm curious as to why.
Click to expand...


Because the chances of being off are higher. Kind of like after I just had overhauled cylinders installed on my lancair by certified mechanics and I had high CHT's. I presumed that was due to not having seated the rings yet. After all they were installed by certified mechanics to standards... Eventually I took a closer look and found none of the under cylinder baffling had been wired. Problem is things get missed and we may not notice it even with multiple inspections.

I disagree with the premise that my vehicle analogy above is not relevant.
 
mondtster said:
I’ve wondered if a lot of the aversion to “damage history” stems from inexperience with aircraft or the inability for some prospective buyers to distinguish good repairs from bad.
Click to expand...
All the above plus a few other things. But I believe it is mainly due to a lack of knowledge of how the overall system works. I think its this inherent unknown in the system that puts your average weekend warrior owner on the defensive when it comes to repair history (damage history to me implies its not repaired.) Whereas for those who understand the system or extensively work in the aviation industry, repair history is just another piece to the overall aircraft condition.
mondtster said:
Adequate documentation and having an aircraft in a truly legal configuration is far more important to me yet never seems to get mentioned or considered in aircraft purchase discussions.
Click to expand...
Agree. But what I've found is most prospective buyers don’t really know what is a “truly legal configuration”. When I get caught up in those discussions I simply have them pull the AWC and read Block 6. When I ask them does this aircraft comply with that legal requirement you can usually que the 1000 yard stare. Fortunately, there still is a sub-group of owners who do follow Block 6 and enjoy their aircraft even more without all the drama of prebuys, expensive 1st annual, and so on.
 
FORANE said:
Because the chances of being off are higher.
Click to expand...
Chances of what? As I mentioned earlier, improper repairs and proper repairs are two separate things. Your cylinder example is the result of a mechanic performance issue not the repair of the cylinder. And if it was missed through numerous inspections then you have multiple performance errors each accountable to the rules. Vehicle repairs have no such accountability. And the human element is always there regardless of the industry. But in the context of the thread, if a repair is performed properly and returns an aircraft to its original configuration, why should that repair record devalue the aircraft?
FORANE said:
I disagree with the premise that my vehicle analogy above is not relevant.
Click to expand...
Let's try this route...to use your analogy… if the vehicle with the salvage title was also a factory certified pre-owned vehicle with 12 month warranty, would you expect to pay less or more than the other identical vehicle?
 
Bell206 said:
Chances of what? As I mentioned earlier, improper repairs and proper repairs are two separate things. Your cylinder example is the result of a mechanic performance issue not the repair of the cylinder. And if it was missed through numerous inspections then you have multiple performance errors each accountable to the rules. Vehicle repairs have no such accountability. And the human element is always there regardless of the industry. But in the context of the thread, if a repair is performed properly and returns an aircraft to its original configuration, why should that repair record devalue the aircraft?

Let's try this route...to use your analogy… if the vehicle with the salvage title was also a factory certified pre-owned vehicle with 12 month warranty, would you expect to pay less or more than the other identical vehicle?
Click to expand...

Given that I place little to no value on factory certified and that I have owned multiple salvage title vehicles, I would expect to pay a significant amount less for the salvage title vehicle.
 
As the damage repair gets older it has less effect on the value. If it was done right and the plane has been flown regularly, after that much time it has almost no effect.
 
Heck, we're talking about 50 year-old aircraft. The only difference between an airplane with 'damage history' and one with 'no damage history' is the honesty level of the owner.

C.
 
Bell206 said:
Curious. Why is there an apparent collective perception that a once damaged and repaired aircraft will never be the same or have future issues due to the repair? Is it due to personal experience, improper work, pilot lounge banter, legend....? Have seen many repaired airplanes/helicopters, some with extensive repairs, that I never once thought would be subpar to the original. In some cases I actually believe the repaired version to be better than the original version. Just interesting comments above.
Click to expand...

There have been many threads about damage history on POA, and it's not unusual for posters to assert that a gear up landing or off runway excursion reduces the value of an aircraft significantly. A common figure given is 20%.

I agree with your perspective. Damage repair is performed by A&P techs that have years of experience, certifications that are earned by strict adherance to FAA requirements, and a professional pride in the work they perform, as you mentioned above. These professionals also have a commitment to the people that fly the airplanes they repair. They understand that aviation safety begins with them. The IA that returns the aircraft to service works under the same set of standards.

I also believe the average pilot looking to purchase an airplane has very little understanding of the above, minimal technical knowledge of aircraft structures, the stresses and load paths that an airframe is designed to absorb, and how repairs to those structures are performed. That being the typical situation, the idea those persons are qualified to determine if repairs are done properly and assign an arbitrary devaluation to a repaired aircraft doesn't make much sense.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice. My initial concerns come thru ignorance, being new to all of this, and advice by long time pilots and APs.

did not buy, talked to the IA that knows the plane
“Project plane”
Okay vfr local plane
Needs 500k
Corrosion. Needs paint
Other people might not annual it as is
“You should not have me do the annual”
Case Needs split to fix an oil leak
Interior is bad
Owner was a “user”, did not fix things or treat them as deserved.
 
An airplane is what it is sitting on the ramp regardless what logs say or don’t say. I want an airplane inspected well enough that my mechanic can tell me the history. I don’t care as much about what the last mechanics wrote.

My 180 was wrecked early in its life 47 years ago and repaired by a guy who became a local legend in Cessna circles as the best metal airplane guy around. Several mechanics have gotten to know this plane and all say it’s better than original. In my case I’m quite certain old damage has no effect on value. Good planes sell for premium prices.
 
My former club had a 172 that had been flipped onto it's back. I assume the wing skins were replaced, and it was corrosion free when we replaced the interior years later. Also had a bird strike that took out the wind screen. No issues.
 
These airplanes are nothing but old, if you really want an aircraft with no damage history you'll have to buy a new one just about, or pay for something of a very recent vintage.
 
If properly repaired it's no issue whatsoever, the reason for the perceived value drop is because in reality you don't know if it was properly repaired or not.
Just because It was signed off and has a 337 doesn't mean it was done right.
A&P's quality varies just like auto mechanics.

IMO a thorough prebuy by a nonbiased person is more important than damage history, they just need to pay attention to any old damage to make sure everything is as it should be.
 
Bell206 said:
Curious. Why is there an apparent collective perception that a once damaged and repaired aircraft will never be the same or have future issues due to the repair? Is it due to personal experience, improper work, pilot lounge banter, legend....? Have seen many repaired airplanes/helicopters, some with extensive repairs, that I never once thought would be subpar to the original. In some cases I actually believe the repaired version to be better than the original version. Just interesting comments above.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The FAR's state "equal or stronger ". Any structure mechanic will always build it stronger then the factory did. Now with that said I have seen some really sketchy repairs, if you do come across something that makes you question your safety, don't fly it. If it's not signed of to the manufacturer SRM (structural repair manual) and signed of to the generic 43.13 , you should have some real questions about why.
 
I found these repairs on a commercial aircraft and immediately grounded it. The mechanic that did the work wasn't a a&p he just thought "what the heck "
If any aircraft is repaired properly you will never need to be concerned.
 

Attachments

  • 20160727_174255.jpg
    20160727_174255.jpg
    102.5 KB · Views: 47
  • 20160725_184424.jpg
    20160725_184424.jpg
    81.6 KB · Views: 46
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top