How important is a paint job?

I've never bought an ugly plane. I want it to be painted, nice interior, low-time engine, etc. It costs more money to do these things than to buy a plane that already has them done.

If you do paint a plane, you need to make sure it's something other people will like! I've seen two pink planes and thought, they would be fun to try to sell.

In my case, I bought a 1959 Cessna 182 with 2016 paint and interior. The paint is a modern Cessna paint scheme and personally, I would have painted it with a traditional 1959 scheme, but it still looks good. When I got to Oshkosh last year and held up my VAC (Vintage Aircraft Camping) sign, the marshaler shook his head no! I pointed at the sign a second time and he looked at the straight tail and laughed.
51803138152_9abdda921f_c.jpg
 
Lowflynjack said:
I've never bought an ugly plane. I want it to be painted, nice interior, low-time engine, etc. It costs more money to do these things than to buy a plane that already has them done.

If you do paint a plane, you need to make sure it's something other people will like! I've seen two pink planes and thought, they would be fun to try to sell.
Click to expand...

I remember a plane for sale from a Alabama fan, “roll tide” and A in white on a red base. Red interior too…. I remember thinking his buyer pool is pretty small
 
Paint doesn't fly. Better to have a good engine and airframe than pretty paint. I got a really nice AA-1A for my first plane with a great airframe and a well-maintained engine, with an ugly if serviceable paint job. That got me a really good purchase discount. I did much the same with my current AA-5. The paint is OK, but not "pretty."

But the paint condition on the aircraft for sale is really, really bad, to the point that it could potentially affect airframe condition. When looking for an airplane: engine and airframe first, avionics second, cosmetics last.
 
It never sleeps and it creeps... it can be anywhere on an airframe... pretty sure thats why my bonanza sold in 5 days to Florida guys.. we're high and dry here in my neck of the woods.
Some guys use corro x and that's cool but I think it's pretty ugly seeping out of every crack and orifice the plane has, but if your a coastal ac owner it's better than the alternative.
 
chemgeek said:
Paint doesn't fly. Better to have a good engine and airframe than pretty paint.
Click to expand...

Best to have it all, why does it need to be one or the other?

Well maintained, modern avionics and nice interior and exterior.
 
Guy Zindel said:
Some guys use corro x and that's cool but I think it's pretty ugly seeping out of every crack and orifice the plane has
Click to expand...
FYI: if its seeping out everywhere then its been applied to thick. A simple trick is to use a cheap small paint gun to fog the corr x into the aircraft. This method is almost identical to the vendor recommend process but without the $1000 price tag for their equipment. When applied it should look like smoke floating around and while there might still be some excess it usually drips only from the drain holes for a day or so.
 
My '64 has original paint. There are spots where it has faded but it still is good. That's how you know it has been treated with love. That and the way they did the engine overhaul. Paint like that says "I was used as a time builder and I wanted to minimize my expenses."
 
paint is so important I've kept mine since 1975!
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Best to have it all, why does it need to be one or the other?
Click to expand...

You can't always find a unicorn plane, especially on a limited budget. Great paint is desirable but not the highest priority. When I helped a colleague plane shop (a good excuse to fly) we saw a lot of "pretty" planes with crappy engines, iffy logbooks, and obsolete avionics. He wound up purchasing a really nice C172 with OK paint but otherwise well-maintained. It's still flying 30 years later and the paint still looks "OK".
 
I was influenced by a friend who ran a body shop until he went out of business when I was young. I never did get my car painted there and had to take it home unpainted.

I have spray painted tanker trucks at work, after stripping them. That is work for a young man, lot's of work climbing around on a big truck.

Then did it for fun at home to cars.

All that gave me a good feel for what it takes to paint something the right way.

It is a lot of work and understand why it cost so much, even years ago before some paint was a 1000 bucks a gallon.

I would not even think about painting a whole plane without some very experienced help. So I would not consider a old plane that needs paint unless someone gave it to me. Like said already what else was neglected? I bet plenty more.
 
My hanger neighbor damaged a wing on his 172. Williams repaired it and it came back all new shinny aluminum. The rest of the 1960s paint was blistering off with plenty of bare aluminum showing.
So he decided to strip the rest of the plane with paint stripper and a pressure washer in his hangar. The airport managar made a exception for him to do it there. Glad I was not next door to him.
He mentioned to me that he thought his son and him could do it in 3 days. I thought yea right, it took them about a month.
Then it took a few more weeks to polish it. No paint just some decals they put on.
There are at least 2 planes at my airport that are polished. Lot's of polishing going on to maintain those 2 planes. I see them polishing them about as much as I see them flying them.
I hope to stick to paint to protect my bird.
 
Guy Zindel said:
Paint is the first line of defense against corrosion, and a proper paint job is just not cheap. I'd rather have to try to sell a bird with a good paint job and a mid to high time power plant than the other way around...
Click to expand...
Paint is not the first line of defense. The thin layer of pure aluminum on the skins is the first line of defense. It's called Alclad, and it's there to oxidize quickly and form a barrier against further attack by oxygen, airborne contaminants and so on.
frfly172 said:
See if you can get a quick scratch and paint for a reasonable price. Then go fly the airplane.
Click to expand...
Don't waste the money doing that. It won't look good, it won't last, and there will be defects overlooked. Like one poster showed, it's best to disassemble the airplane for painting. That way, one finds worn or cracked stuff. Maybe some owners don't want worn and cracked stuff found....
I painted several airplanes. Took them all apart every time.
Racerx said:
Bad paint is one thing. But the guy neglected it so long the paint is GONE. What else was neglected?
Click to expand...
That looks like lacquer, which was commonly used by the manufacturers up into the '80s. No primer under it either. Lacquer goes on easy, dries real fast, and looks good enough to sell the airplane. But you will note that the aluminum revealed by the peeling paint is not full of corrosion holes.
Sundancer said:
It's an old airplane. Paint's purpose is to protect the metal. That metal ain't protected. . .
Click to expand...
Yes, it is, by the Alclad, as pointed out above. It's just ugly. Paint can add protection if it's done properly, but good work doesn't come cheap.

chemgeek said:
Paint doesn't fly. Better to have a good engine and airframe than pretty paint.
Click to expand...
Yup. Besides that, the most serious corrosion is found inside the airplane, not on the outside. So many annual inspections are little more than walkarounds, and the interior doesn't get pulled out to get a good look at the structure, and inspection panels aren't all removed to check inside wings and tail and under floors. By the time some conscientious mechanic does the job right, he finds terminal corrosion, cracks in structure, seized control system pulleys, frayed and corroded cables, failing wiring, lots of such stuff.


Pretty paint and a nice new interior sure sell an airplane fast, but in many cases the buyer is getting a pig wearing lipstick.
 
Lacquers went away in the early 70s. Acrylic enamels took over.

Lacquers required work after spraying to get a shiny smooth surface. Acrylic enamels did not. Later in the 70s they added catalysts for harder and longer lasting paints. Then came the polyurethanes.
 
I helped/watched a neighbor paint his 63 split window vette with black lacquer around 1971-72. I remember him rubbing it out is what he called it. I was about 12 and he is the reason I liked cars and paint.
I helped wet sand it.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Pretty paint and a nice new interior sure sell an airplane fast,
Click to expand...

No need to look any further than some of the comments in this thread for evidence of that.

Dan Thomas said:
but in many cases the buyer is getting a pig wearing lipstick.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Personally, I'd rather see a decent older (or better yet, original) paint job on an airplane that I'm considering buying. It keeps the mysteries about what might have been hidden to a minimum. One of the nicest older airplanes I've seen was my first airplane, an older Cherokee 140 that still wore its original paint and had the original interior in it. Being a mechanic has allowed me to inspect a lot of Cherokees since then and I've grown to regret selling that airplane because very few have measured up to that one. But it wasn't a "pretty" airplane so It wouldn't get any love by this crowd. I also ferried a very original late '60s 182 for a new owner. That one was near mint and also had its original paint and interior. I was familiar with the plane before the sale but didn't know the owner was selling it, but I would have bought that one immediately had I known it was for sale. It wouldn't have gotten any love here either. Meanwhile, I've worked on numerous aircraft that had new paint or more recent repaints that have been a mess. Almost always, the reason the owner bought the aircraft was because it looked pretty inside and out.

In my opinion, new paint, interior, engine, radios, etc. does not tell the story of the aircraft by itself. One needs to look at and evaluate the aircraft as a whole. The aircraft in question might be okay, or it might not be. The real decision that needs to be made is how much effort and money is spent on trying to decide if it is good or not. I probably wouldn't expend a bunch of energy on it if I were shopping due to the distance I'd need to travel to make a decision. Cherokees are a dime a dozen, I'd find one that is close to home and is decent and be done with it.
 
First plane I put a deposit on had nice paint, nice interior, nice panel.

But a review of the logs showed a vcry questionable engine.

The plane I bought has nice paint, original, but OK interior, OK panel, but a 250 hour since FRM engine.

A paint job is $15K - $25K. An engine can be $80K now days.
 
Pinecone said:
Lacquers went away in the early 70s. Acrylic enamels took over.

Lacquers required work after spraying to get a shiny smooth surface. Acrylic enamels did not. Later in the 70s they added catalysts for harder and longer lasting paints. Then came the polyurethanes.
Click to expand...
I was stripping lacquers off Cessnas built in 1976. Easy to spot: the paint turns to snot.
 
Strange they would use it. MUCH more labor intensive.
 
Buying a plane with horrible paint was one of the best things I've done. It was a 1946 Cub that sat outside for several years. Some paint was peeling, colors were faded in areas, and a few spots had silver dope from repairs under the fabric. I flew it for a few years then spent 3 years restoring it, beginning with a used frame that I found in a barn after it had been stripped down for parts years ago, with damage from a flip over limited mostly to the birdcage. After sandblasting and epoxy priming the entire fuselage the restoration was done using original parts or replacement parts equivalent to OEM, and the only items installed that wouldn't have been installed in 1946 were sealed struts and shoulder harnesses. I was lucky to find a 65 HP Continental engine with only around 300 hours since new on it. That was almost 25 years ago and I still fly it regularly.

Don't ask me how much I spent on parts and labor. I don't care what I spent back then because it has been very low cost to own and maintain since then and has always been a joy to fly. Photos if interested, but here it is in the early stage of the restoration and how it looked when completed. :)



Cubfuselage.jpg J3.jpg
 
Gary Ward said:
I helped/watched a neighbor paint his 63 split window vette with black lacquer around 1971-72. I remember him rubbing it out is what he called it. I was about 12 and he is the reason I liked cars and paint.
I helped wet sand it.
Click to expand...

I love the split window Vettes! My favorite car growing up.
 
Lacquer is cool, but IF you can find someone that can supply you with a quality product it will likely be as, or more expensive than a good urethane like aerothane plus aerothane is more flexible, it was designed that way from the jump... Oh, and ya paint is the first line of defense.... it provides the only barrier between the environment and the alclad.... like cad plating it's the first to be sacrificed to the elements...
 
Hi, does anyone know of a reputable painter in Connecticut, and what I would be looking to spend on striping and repainting a PA-180?
 
Klaus M said:
View attachment 117303

It takes a lot of labor and parts to get a 50 YO aircraft back in the air with fresh paint. If the maintenance is totally up and up each 50 YO part needs to be scrutinized while the plane is apart. Very rarely does a Cherokee of any age not need a couple wing panels replaced. The Wing Walk panels are cracked out quite often.
Click to expand...

While that new paint job looks nice, I saw nothing wrong with the old paint (from that distance).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top