Do you agree with "Too much airframe time"?

J

JC150

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
491
Display Name
Display name:
JC150
I was helping a neighbor research planes that would fit his mission and came across some nice Comanches, V tail Bonanzas, and some PA32's that also had some really nice avionics in them and low engine times. His biggest complaint was the airframe time which ranged from 7,800 to 9,400 TTAF. I told my friend that you want a plane that has been flown regularly but he thinks anything over 4,500 hours is "tired". I'm just curious what other owners here think about "too much airframe time"? I had a Cessna previously with over 10,000 hours and had no issues with it.
 
JC150 said:
I was helping a neighbor research planes that would fit his mission and came across some nice Comanches, V tail Bonanzas, and some PA32's that also had some really nice avionics in them and low engine times. His biggest complaint was the airframe time which ranged from 7,800 to 9,400 TTAF. I told my friend that you want a plane that has been flown regularly but he thinks anything over 4,500 hours is "tired". I'm just curious what other owners here think about "too much airframe time"? I had a Cessna previously with over 10,000 hours and had no issues with it.
Click to expand...

Depends on how it has been maintained. The airframe itself would not be an issue in my opinion. Everything bolted to it is another story that is only told by the maintenance.
 
They are all hangared and well maintained. My neighbor is the kind of guy that just looks at the numbers like ttaf, overhaul, and damage history to sort through used planes for sale. He is also paranoid about re-sale because he thinks no one will want to purchase it when it comes time to upgrade.

Some of these planes are over 50 years old though and I can't imagine a 1960's Piper with less than 2,000 hrs on the frame being flown "regularly". But maybe Im wrong?

Would anyone on this forum avoid a plane with over 7,000 hours simply because it had over 7,000 hours?
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't start looking hard for wear and fatigue issue until 10,000 hrs, and even then it can be fine. Corrosion is more of an issue with non pressurized GA airframes than anything, and that is a problem regardless time, actually low time old airframes are more likely to show problems. There are just so many variables that without seeing and assessing the airframe on an individual basis, the numbers are of limited use in assessing the condition of the airframe.
 
My T42 with 13,000 hours is in way better shape, airframe condition-wise, than my S35 with 4,000 that I bought from a dentist.

I also understand I'll never be able to sell the thing because of this common perception about 10k-and-it-turns-into-a-pumpkin. The price reflected it. No complaints, I've made a share of ME pilots with the thing. :)

The T42's logbooks are about 50 pounds' weight. Lots of meaty and long entries. Thanks Unca Sam.
 
I don't know what his financial situation is, but if he intends to borrow the money, the lender may have some stipulations on airframe time.

My lender won't loan on an anything with over 5,000 TTAF. It's rediculous in my opinion, but they are a pretty nitpicky bunch.

They may be the exception rather than the rule, but I thought I'd throw that out.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Depends on how it has been maintained. The airframe itself would not be an issue in my opinion. Everything bolted to it is another story that is only told by the maintenance.
Click to expand...

+1 on this. Our airplane has over 6K hours, but the previous owner (FBI) did an IRAN at 4k+ that included chromating the entire inside, replacing control surfaces, etc. It was amazing the number of new parts installed!

The logs are a good reference, but even they don't tell everything. We found that our #2 comm radio (since replaced) would transmit on freqs that it shouldn'ta/oughta, but would have been handy for the feebies.

Jim
 
I don't know about Comanche or the PA32 but the Bonanza is just getting broke in at 5000 hours. It was designed and built to Utility category standards back in the CAR 3 days, and is stouter than the comparable planes from P and C. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Bonanza with 10k hours provided it had been maintained well. The E33C straight tail is certified in Acrobatic category with only minimal changes to the door, a few gussets and placards. Some of the high airframe time Bonanzas are just starting to show the cracks in the spar carrythrough and there's an AD for inspection and remediation to put that to rest.
 
I challenge anyone to look at an airframe and determine how many hours it has.....

I've seen some very ratty 2,000 hr airframes.:yes:
 
docmirror said:
I don't know about Comanche or the PA32 but the Bonanza is just getting broke in at 5000 hours. It was designed and built to Utility category standards back in the CAR 3 days, and is stouter than the comparable planes from P and C.
Click to expand...

Total BS.

docmirror said:
I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Bonanza with 10k hours provided it had been maintained well.
Click to expand...

You can use that same analogy with a Cessna/Piper/Mooney/Maule/Navion/etc. Maintenance is the key to long life on any airframe regardless of manufacturer.

docmirror said:
The E33C straight tail is certified in Acrobatic category with only minimal changes to the door, a few gussets and placards. Some of the high airframe time Bonanzas are just starting to show the cracks in the spar carrythrough and there's an AD for inspection and remediation to put that to rest.
Click to expand...

This contradicts what you said above. There are other aircraft flying that are high time that don't experience cracking in spar carry through or any other wing structure. Beech on the other hand has always had problems in that department, look at the number of mods various Beech models have on wing structure alone (spar straps, etc) to keep them flying.
 
Personally If the plane was well maintained and shows no signs of corrosion I would not have a problem flying it. I would do an extensive pre buy inspection with an A&P/IA that you know. You can sometimes come up with a gem of an airplane at a good price because others have the same opinion as your friend
 
RotorAndWing said:
Total BS.



You can use that same analogy with a Cessna/Piper/Mooney/Maule/Navion/etc. Maintenance is the key to long life on any airframe regardless of manufacturer.



This contradicts what you said above. There are other aircraft flying that are high time that don't experience cracking in spar carry through or any other wing structure. Beech on the other hand has always had problems in that department, look at the number of mods various Beech models have on wing structure alone (spar straps, etc) to keep them flying.
Click to expand...

Go look it up. All Bonanzas are certified to Utility category, the Comanche is not, I haven't looked up the PA32 but if you are calling BS, you go look it up and tell me.

I used Bonanza because I know them. In the first para I said don't know about the other two, but the Bonanza I can categorically state that I know of airframes with > 10k hours and I would be fine with it. I don't disagree that mx is a key to any airframe, and my statement didn't say that it wasn't.

Actually, there is no inconsistency. Beech and the ABS have addressed the continuing spar cracks with proactive measures that a high time airframe would encounter. If you want Bonanza performance, and endurance with high airframe time, the requirements for continued AW are what they are. I don't recall seeing any PA32s or Comanches certified as Acro, nor do I recall any of them being built for 40 years continuous. We also know with high certainty that Bonanzas were quite often exposed to high stress environments by ham-fisted pilots causing them to break up in flight. I would say that the majority of spar cracks are a result of the flight stresses put on Bonanza, that no one would think of subjecting a Comanche or PA32 to. The fact is, they are just utilized much more, and stressed much more than the Piper fleet.
 
In fairness to the brand P and C's.....if there was a safety of flight issue with those high time airframes they would be life limited....or AD'd.

To my recollection....neither are the case. :rolleyes2:
docmirror said:
Go look it up. All Bonanzas are certified to Utility category, the Comanche is not, I haven't looked up the PA32 but if you are calling BS, you go look it up and tell me.

I used Bonanza because I know them. In the first para I said don't know about the other two, but the Bonanza I can categorically state that I know of airframes with > 10k hours and I would be fine with it. I don't disagree that mx is a key to any airframe, and my statement didn't say that it wasn't.

Actually, there is no inconsistency. Beech and the ABS have addressed the continuing spar cracks with proactive measures that a high time airframe would encounter. If you want Bonanza performance, and endurance with high airframe time, the requirements for continued AW are what they are. I don't recall seeing any PA32s or Comanches certified as Acro, nor do I recall any of them being built for 40 years continuous. We also know with high certainty that Bonanzas were quite often exposed to high stress environments by ham-fisted pilots causing them to break up in flight. I would say that the majority of spar cracks are a result of the flight stresses put on Bonanza, that no one would think of subjecting a Comanche or PA32 to. The fact is, they are just utilized much more, and stressed much more than the Piper fleet.
Click to expand...
 
docmirror said:
Go look it up. All Bonanzas are certified to Utility category, the Comanche is not, I haven't looked up the PA32 but if you are calling BS, you go look it up and tell me..
Click to expand...

The BS part is this
It was designed and built to Utility category standards back in the CAR 3 days, and is stouter than the comparable planes from P and C.
Click to expand...
The designation of utility versus normal category is done for several reasons. Fact is the manufacturers you mentioned do have utility category airframes in their single engine line as well as being CAR3 designs.

docmirror said:
I used Bonanza because I know them. In the first para I said don't know about the other two, but the Bonanza I can categorically state that I know of airframes with > 10k hours and I would be fine with it. I don't disagree that mx is a key to any airframe, and my statement didn't say that it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Again, a total contradiction. :rolleyes2:

docmirror said:
I don't recall seeing any PA32s or Comanches certified as Acro, nor do I recall any of them being built for 40 years continuous.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with anything. :dunno: Do you have personal knowledge from any of the manufacturer's engineering to prove otherwise?

docmirror said:
We also know with high certainty that Bonanzas were quite often exposed to high stress environments by ham-fisted pilots causing them to break up in flight. I would say that the majority of spar cracks are a result of the flight stresses put on Bonanza, that no one would think of subjecting a Comanche or PA32 to.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no proof to such a statement. :rolleyes2:

docmirror said:
The fact is, they are just utilized much more, and stressed much more than the Piper fleet.
Click to expand...

Prove it.
 
Time for a whatev dude. You got in my face, you prove your point. The rest of the GA pilots know it, you are the outlier.
 
docmirror said:
Time for a whatev dude. You got in my face, you prove your point. The rest of the GA pilots know it, you are the outlier.
Click to expand...

Don't let him bother you. He goes into a fit of keyboard Tourette's when he sees the word beechcraft. He also thinks that 337s are great planes. I mean they probably are if you have pictures of 3 or 4 IAs in compromising situations.

I've got about equal time in P, C and B. It be pretty hard to not notice the build quality differences in the 3. That or a lethal dose of denial.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
In fairness to the brand P and C's.....if there was a safety of flight issue with those high time airframes they would be life limited....or AD'd.

To my recollection....neither are the case. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

There are some life limited airframes out there, either by design or AD, but they are few.
 
I sometimes wonder about wet wings and tank sealant lifetime. When it gets long in the tooth, I'm wonder if it isn't a bad idea to avoid unecessary flights in moderate turbulence. Just to reduce the loads on the wing.
 
bartmc said:
Don't let him bother you. He goes into a fit of keyboard Tourette's when he sees the word beechcraft. He also thinks that 337s are great planes. I mean they probably are if you have pictures of 3 or 4 IAs in compromising situations.

I've got about equal time in P, C and B. It be pretty hard to not notice the build quality differences in the 3. That or a lethal dose of denial.
Click to expand...
let's not confuse quality.....with safety. :no:
 
bartmc said:
Don't let him bother you. He goes into a fit of keyboard Tourette's when he sees the word beechcraft.
Click to expand...

No, I just dispute undocumented and blatant misinformation.


bartmc said:
He also thinks that 337s are great planes.
Click to expand...

Personal opinion. But I don't get on forums insisting everyone should own one, nor do I routinely post when someone ask a question about another brand "You should buy a ******". If you've ever bothered to read my postings you would see I've posted my own personal experience about owning or flying a certain aircraft (337 included). Please go find one post where I advocated someone to buy a 337 over something else.

I've also never replied to a posting on an aircraft I don't have personal experience with. On the other hand, I've seen detailed postings on aircraft performance, ownership issues and maintenance cost on an airplane that the individual walked by and looked at sitting in a hangar, but has never even sat in one. :rolleyes2:


bartmc said:
I've got about equal time in P, C and B. It be pretty hard to not notice the build quality differences in the 3. That or a lethal dose of denial.
Click to expand...

I've got a fair amount of time in P, C, B, B, AC, L, M, H, S, B, D, etc, etc. I've also got a fair amount of time in opening them up, repairing them and returning to service. In reality the B is no better than the rest. :dunno:
 
I think I found the problem. If you can't afford to lose you can't afford to play.
JC150 said:
They are all hangared and well maintained. My neighbor is the kind of guy that just looks at the numbers like ttaf, overhaul, and damage history to sort through used planes for sale. He is also paranoid about re-sale because he thinks no one will want to purchase it when it comes time to upgrade.

Some of these planes are over 50 years old though and I can't imagine a 1960's Piper with less than 2,000 hrs on the frame being flown "regularly". But maybe Im wrong?

Would anyone on this forum avoid a plane with over 7,000 hours simply because it had over 7,000 hours?
Click to expand...
 
bartmc said:
I've got about equal time in P, C and B. It be pretty hard to not notice the build quality differences in the 3.
Click to expand...

Perceived build quality or actual build quality? There is a big difference...
 
sixpacker said:
Perceived build quality or actual build quality? There is a big difference...
Click to expand...

Just shut the door on a cherokee or 172 then shut the door on a musketeer. I've had the door pop open numerous times on C&P never in a beech. Look at the Bo seats vs C&P. Compare the landing gear on a Bo to a 182RG. I will take the Bo gear any day and twice on Sunday over anything Cessna ever made. My cherokee seats weRe ummm primitive compared to my Bo. Don't forget about the auto slide feature of the cessna seats.

That's just to get started.
 
bartmc said:
Just shut the door on a cherokee or 172 then shut the door on a musketeer. I've had the door pop open numerous times on C&P never in a beech. Look at the Bo seats vs C&P. Compare the landing gear on a Bo to a 182RG. I will take the Bo gear any day and twice on Sunday over anything Cessna ever made. My cherokee seats weRe ummm primitive compared to my Bo. Don't forget about the auto slide feature of the cessna seats.

That's just to get started.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll play. Magnesium control surfaces, ever wonder why other manufacturers avoided them?

Wing attach points, ever wonder why Beech has had so many problems with them?

Non standard cockpit layout. Wonder why Beech was so late in catching up with the rest of the industry?

Fuel system. Those early Beech fuel systems defy logic.

Stabilizer forward cuffs. Mike Smith came up with a fix for the under engineered stabilizers. Beech sued him saying it was not necessary. Years later new Beech's had, guess what?, leading edge cuffs.

Never had a door pop open on a Beech? I have, so have others.

Ever rigged a landing gear on a Beech? I have, PITA. Ever changed a bladder in one? PITA

Corrosion. Yep, seen as many Beech's loaded with corrosion just as any other.

We get you are a Bonanza fanatic. Don't let your fanaticism get in the way of reality.
 
RotorAndWing said:
OK, I'll play. Magnesium control surfaces, ever wonder why other manufacturers avoided them?
Click to expand...

Don't have any on mine.

Wing attach points, ever wonder why Beech has had so many problems with them?
Click to expand...
Mine is 54 years old. Never had an issue.

Non standard cockpit layout. Wonder why Beech was so late in catching up with the rest of the industry?
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with quality.

Fuel system. Those early Beech fuel systems defy logic.
Click to expand...

Define early. Mines a 1961 and it's dead simple and solid. Are you talking about tne 1940s era ones when there was no other comparable plane on the market?

Stabilizer forward cuffs. Mike Smith came up with a fix for the under engineered stabilizers. Beech sued him saying it was not necessary. Years later new Beech's had, guess what?, leading edge cuffs.
Click to expand...

They're minor and every plane has them now, so what?

Never had a door pop open on a Beech? I have, so have others.
Click to expand...

Never said it wasn't possible, in my experience it's less likely.

Ever rigged a landing gear on a Beech? I have, PITA. Ever changed a bladder in one? PITA
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with quality.

Corrosion. Yep, seen as many Beech's loaded with corrosion just as any other.
Click to expand...

Yep, says a lot about the natural properties of aluminum. Not construction quality. A theres a Debbie at my airport eat up with it. Let any plane sit on the Georgia coast for half a century and get back with me.

We get you are a Bonanza fanatic. Don't let your fanaticism get in the way of reality.
Click to expand...

I'm anything but a fanatic. I won't even go on beechtalk where the fanatics live. I just like arguing with you and giving you **** about 337s since you violently defend them anytime they're mentioned.
 
bartmc said:
Don't let him bother you. He goes into a fit of keyboard Tourette's when he sees the word beechcraft.
Click to expand...

You know he's owned Beech and Cessna airplanes.

In the wrong hands, any airplane regardless of manufacturer can become a total piece of crap.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You know he's owned Beech and Cessna airplanes.

In the wrong hands, any airplane regardless of manufacturer can become a total piece of crap.
Click to expand...

You know I've owned Piper and Beech airplanes and have equally as much time in rental cessnas?

Yes, you're correct but we're talking about how theyre engineered and build quality. not the condition they're in 50 years later.
 
Maintance is first and foremost, I've seen late model 172SPs lowish time that were beat to crap, the plane I soloed in has been owned by a flight school since the late 40s, as in 1940s, it flew like a dream.

As for hours, well I'd go for a lower time airframe if possible, it's more desirable.

If your friend is looking at Bo's, PA24s and the like, there are plenty of em' out there, he can afford to be picky.
 
kontiki said:
I sometimes wonder about wet wings and tank sealant lifetime. When it gets long in the tooth, I'm wonder if it isn't a bad idea to avoid unecessary flights in moderate turbulence. Just to reduce the loads on the wing.
Click to expand...

Wet wings get stripped and resealed all the time. The sealant is life limited and flexing of the wing no doubt contributes to the seals failure. However, the solution is well known and the ailment does not render the airframe useless, or even all the unsafe in most cases. Just another one of the SOB items you sometimes have to fix on an old airplane.
 
bartmc said:
You know I've owned Piper and Beech airplanes and have equally as much time in rental cessnas?
Click to expand...

Wow, I bow down to your indepth knowledge. Amateurs like myself should just keep quiet. :rolleyes2:

bartmc said:
Yes, you're correct but we're talking about how theyre engineered and build quality. not the condition they're in 50 years later.
Click to expand...

You can't see the connection?

Bart, you are the one that keeps bringing up this 337 nonsense. Please go back in this thread and quote me where I tried or implied it was any better. On several threads when I answered a post you would jump in with some nonsense about 337s, even though no one had mentioned them or the thread was even concerned about them. It's you that seems to have this fetish about them.

Even here recently in the classifieds you began attacking a seller on his Debonair and how your Bonanza was superior. Really? :rolleyes2:

If you are anyone wants to post blatantly false information be prepared to back it up with facts. So far you and another have been unable to do that, instead resorting to hyperbole and flame throwing.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Wow, I bow down to your indepth knowledge. Amateurs like myself should just keep quiet. :rolleyes2:



You can't see the connection?

Bart, you are the one that keeps bringing up this 337 nonsense. Please go back in this thread and quote me where I tried or implied it was any better. On several threads when I answered a post you would jump in with some nonsense about 337s, even though no one had mentioned them or the thread was even concerned about them. It's you that seems to have this fetish about them.

Even here recently in the classifieds you began attacking a seller on his Debonair and how your Bonanza was superior. Really? :rolleyes2:

If you are anyone wants to post blatantly false information be prepared to back it up with facts. So far you and another have been unable to do that, instead resorting to hyperbole and flame throwing.
Click to expand...

I didn't attack his Debbie. I attacked his price. He is at least 30K over reality and only fishing for a sucker. I just said I had a similar plane ( I do ) with a nicer panel ( it is ) that I'd sell for tens of thousands less ( I will ).

You're the one who jumped right on doc for offering his opinion on the longetivity of Bonanzas while admitting he didn't know about the other brands.

You're the one who says all planes are created equal when it's evident to even a 5 year old that cant be true. Different engineers, different CEOs, different compromises, different methodologies do not produce the same results. I guess a Geo Metro, an Audi RS8 and a Lamborghini Diablo are all equal quality?
 
Last edited:
At some point, the answer to the OP's question is nobody really knows for most airframes. The truth is, at some point in an airframes life span, we all become test pilots. The life limit on an airframe is typically established by actual experience in the field. How long an airframe go? Nobody really knows until there is a failure trend established. I suspect that for most airframes, that is closer to 20,000 hours, but that's just my WAG.

The original designers and engineers of our planes never dreamed many of these planes would be in regular service this long. They were all supposed to be replaced by now with newer designs, but with GA in decline, we are headed for uncharted territory. A day when airframes over 10,000 hours become the norm, rather than the exception.

Airframe TT is just like damage history. It's a bargaining chip during sales negotiations and that's about it. You can accept the high time at great discount, or move on and find something lower time. I personally think the hardest wear on our planes is the annual inspection!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top