Buying an airplane; how much “Total Time” is too much?

Should I consider buying a plane built in 1977 if it has over 10,000 total hours?

  • Total voters
    45
Alex Batista said:
Yeah, I figure 80 to 100 hours per year should be a good average for a private owner, do you agree?



EXACTLY!!
Click to expand...

For a late 1970s plane like an Arrow I would be looking for something in the range of 4000 to 6500 hours, as a general rule. My 1979 Aztec had ~5500 hours on it when I bought it in 2012. That was a bit higher than others I found, but this plane had been flown consistently throughout its entire life since new, with no periods of downtime and neglect like other lower time Aztecs I came across.

As for commercial operations vs private, not all commercial operations are the same either. As others have pointed out some government aircraft are excellent (I came across a really nice very well maintained and upgraded Cessna 337 owned by the State of North Dakota when I first started investigating piston twins). Some commercial charter aircraft can have higher hours too, but still be good airplanes.

The type of airplane plays a big role in this. Simple airplanes in commercial service are generally trainers, more complex airplanes may be trainers, but for IFR or similar, so not subject to ham handed low time pilots doing endless T&Gs. Commercial operators flying charters are also a different type of service compared to ab initio training, but good luck finding a 4-cyl Cherokee single with that sort of background - more likely to find Cherokee Sixes or twins in that service.

Good luck with the search. Your perfect airplane is out there somewhere. Be patient and be persistent, and you'll find it.
 
Last edited:
Alex Batista said:
I’ve been looking at some airplanes and there are some that are very attractive, with the avionics that I want, and some of them with really nice paint jobs. The caveat; total time! I find some “ok” ones built in 1977 with a bit less than 4,000 hours. But then I see some beautiful ones built in 1978 with over 10,000 hours!! To me, that many hours suggest it belonged to a flight school and I probably has lots of landings. Should those 10k+ even be considered. It doesn’t seem to change the price much! What’s your opinion?
Click to expand...

Meh. I flew an Arrow 2 that had 10,000+ airframe hours for years.
 
jbarrass said:
I'd be more afraid of a 42 year old plane with 2500 hours than 10K hours.
Click to expand...

Not me. The 2,500 hour airplane is clearly a better choice, subject to the usual pre-buy inspection. Metal fatigue is an inescapable fact, and an airplane with 10,000 hours is going to be inferior to a 2,500 hour airplane in that regard.
 
3393RP said:
Not me. The 2,500 hour airplane is clearly a better choice, subject to the usual pre-buy inspection. Metal fatigue is an inescapable fact, and an airplane with 10,000 hours is going to be inferior to a 2,500 hour airplane in that regard.
Click to expand...

I’d be more worried about corrosion than fatigue.


Tom
 
As a non pilot, my opinion may not have much value at PILOTS of America, but I'm looking at joining a local club that has arrows, with the eventual goal of owning a pa32, so Ive been watching the piper spar issue with some interest.

The wing separation occurred at ERAU in FL. The cause was metal fatigue where the spar meets the fuselage. Another ERAU arrow was found to have similar cracking. Both planes were around 11K hours. Several other flight school arrows were tested with no problems. Possibly the salt environment or some other exceptionally hard use specific to ERAU may have contributed?

Another similar accident occurred to a pipeline plane with over 10k hours in the 80's. Pipeline patrol shouldn't have many cycles, but perhaps the plane was previously a trainer? That incident spawned an AD, but after several years of no other findings i think it was rescinded.

Theres a pretty good video explaining it here:


(Side note, Christie is gorgeous...)
(Other side note, there's a well know cirrus driver in the into, don't let that turn you off, he's not in this episode)

The inspection doesn't look to be a huge deal, but i think the risk is real. I would consider a higher hour Cherokee, but it had better be cheap, and i would require a spar inspection before writing the check. It is clearly the weak point in the piper design, but seems to take a lot of (hard?) cycles to cause a problem.
 
Last edited:
Pipeline inspection planes do fly in rough air a lot.
 
Alex:

An Arrow is a fine aircraft, however a Grumman tiger may be even better. Just as fast as the Arrow without the maintenance of a constant speed prop and retractable gear. Cheaper to insure too!

The visibility from the Tiger cockpit is incredible, plenty of leg room in the back seat, and you can fly with the canopy open. Just the ticket for staying cool in the summer! The back seat of the Tiger folds down flat with the baggage compartment making a flat floor over 6 ft long for golf clubs, bikes, camping gear, whatever! The gear on a Tiger is attached to the fuselage, not the wing, so the wing to fuselage joint doesn’t take the stress of landings, no issues with spar attach points.

Best of all you get to say Grumman every time you key the mike!
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
I’d be more worried about corrosion than fatigue.
Click to expand...

Both corrosion and fatigue are problems. But you can see corrosion. You can't see the work-hardening that leads to cracking. So you should look for airplanes that were looked after: hangared out of the wind and weather, kept clean, and relatively low hours depending on what those hours were like.

I spent some years looking after a flight-school fleet. We bought low-time airplanes and found cracks in some of them. The weak areas of many popular models are well-known and the manufacturers publish service bulletins and supplemental inspection documents dealing with those. A good shop will know what to look at.

And like someone else mentioned, pipeline or powerline patrol isn't necessarily nice easy work. The air is rough down low. It's mentioned in an AD against the Cessna 210 regarding spar cracking: www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/56717ab5cb54566186257a05004aeefa/$FILE/2012-10-04.pdf
 
In my humble experience, I would not buy any 150-182 as a private aircraft with over 6k hours.

reason? it is when we start to see airframe problems like loose rivets, corrosion, loose fittings, landing gear boxes and fittings show signs of movement.
Lots of little things that cost a lot to fix.
 
GRG55 said:
good luck finding a 4-cyl Cherokee single with that sort of background
Click to expand...

Yeah, it’s like finding a used pickup truck no one used for cargo :D But hey, I used to fly an old C172/180 conversion that I absolutely loved and would’ve owned it I had the chance, and that airplane wasn’t anywhere near what I’m looking for now. So when it’s all said and done, I’m sure I’ll settle for something sensible that I will absolutely love (understanding the ownership costs and responsibilities that I’ve carefully researched).

GRG55 said:
Your perfect airplane is out there somewhere. Be patient and be persistent, and you'll find it.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed! And to think it was built close to my date of birth (1977) and that IT has been flying all of MY life is kind of crazy to think of! I appreciate your input, and your last quote (for some reason) drew a big smile on my face! Thank You!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top