I need to learn more about safety and airframe age

M

masoric

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
10
Display Name
Display name:
masoric
Good Afternoon All,

I am a few hours away from completing my license requirements. My current plan is to rent for at least 12 -24 months in order to learn what kind of aircraft I enjoy flying and continue on to get my complex/high performance as well as my IFR. Having said that I am one of those people that likes to plan far into the future and I probably research more then is healthy. I am ashamed of how many spreadsheets I have on estimated costs, maintenance, timelines, pros/cons etc. etc. already and I am not even an official pilot yet.

The main mission I am interested in aiming for requires a 6 seat aircraft (thinking a c206/210 or a Cherokee 6) that might fall a little outside of the price bracket I am comfortable with for a newer model. Likely I am looking at something manufactured in the 70s ish and possibly with quite a few hours on it. I am not terribly concerned with retail value as one of the reasons I will be renting so long is to end up in my forever plane for my first purchase (that may be naïve) . What I am concerned with is safety and longevity.

I have been reading as much as I can and I understand that age and hours are only a small piece of the puzzle when it comes to longevity. You need to factor in the type, what it has been used for, logs, maintenance records, hangered/not hangered, location, damage history and a million other factors. However, most of that information has been knowledge you fine folks have shared in forum posts, and some articles I found. I just was curious if there was any training I could take, any official research I could read or any other information I could be pointed to that might just help educate me more.

I anticipate this might be a scenario where I buy the aircraft and then refurbishment takes some time. So the more I learn and the earlier I can learn it the better I feel.

Thank you in advance and I appreciate any thoughts you might have. Forgive the poor grammar I am triple booked on conference calls today and multi tasking is an understatement.

Regards,
Masoric.
 
Age is less important than condition.
 
Salty said:
Age is less important than condition.
Click to expand...

I think maybe a shorter and simpler way to rephrase my post would be how can I better educate myself to judge condition? While I would always engage a trusted mechanic for any purchase the more I understand myself the more comfortable I am.

Adam
 
Structurally, it is all about condition. If properly maintained, the airframe will last a long time. Someone will come along and correct me but I recall Piper limiting the airframe to 60,000 hours.
 
masoric said:
how can I better educate myself to judge condition?
Click to expand...
That is still a very broad question. From a maintenance perspective, once you get closer to selecting which aircraft type you want, then spend your time educating yourself on condition issues for that model. Short of that you'll end up with volumes of unrelated info as few aircraft models can be compared to other model types let alone identical aircraft within each model line. As I'm a believer in selecting your mechanic first before buying an aircraft, you could cut your learning curve by learning off their experience on what is important in a particular model's condition. But keep in mind, if your intent is to become an engaged owner, there is a lot of non-aircraft knowledge about ownership that you can study up on right now. Unfortunately, most owners only prefer the aircraft specific info to learn about.;)
 
Morgan3820 said:
I recall Piper limiting the airframe to 60,000 hours.
Click to expand...
FYI: unless an aircraft has an airworthiness limitation section limiting airframe hours there is no limit. Most if not all CAR 3 aircraft do not. However, if certified under Part 23 I believe there were some with limitations. On Pipers, if I recall, only a few of the upper models have limits like a malibu but it's in the 10,000 to 15,000 hr range.
 
masoric said:
I just was curious if there was any training I could take, any official research I could read or any other information I could be pointed to that might just help educate me more.
Click to expand...
Honestly there's no magic pill or course, it really just comes down to maintenance.. there are some 60 year old airplanes out there that look, ride, and feel much nicer than some planes that are only a few years old. The Tecnams twins and G1000 Skyhawks at the local schools here are all fairly new, but man are they beat to hell..

It's kind of like the fairly heirloom axe thing
"We've had this axe in our family for generations, hundreds of years! We've only had to replace the handle and the head a couple times!"

At some point a properly maintained airplane should be "as good as new"

Metal fatigue is an issue, but that's why you get a competent prebuy and a good mechanic.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: unless an aircraft has an airworthiness limitation section limiting airframe hours there is no limit. Most if not all CAR 3 aircraft do not. However, if certified under Part 23 I believe there were some with limitations. On Pipers, if I recall, only a few of the upper models have limits like a malibu but it's in the 10,000 to 15,000 hr range.
Click to expand...
Trama hawk has a life limit also, I seem to remember the number 12000. As usual, bell gives so good advice. I will add, choose your mechanic before a specific airplane. For example, if your looking at Comanches or bellancas you need a mechanic that knows them well. The biggest thing that you should run from is corrosion, it’s cancer and just as expensive.
 
unsafervguy said:
12000
Click to expand...
I think you are right. The Cirrus and Tiger also have limits, at least on the wing. They're composite and their fatigue life is less well know so these are very conservative limits. 12,000 hrs is a lot though. You'd have to fly 100 hrs a year for 120 years to hit that.. maybe some flight schools can approach that, but most planes you see on Controller, etc, have WELL UNDER that amount

I wouldn't worry about that so much. Honestly what might be more insidious is something like a tiny crack somewhere in a spar not being caught, like that poor sap in the 210 in Australia
 
Bell206 said:
. But keep in mind, if your intent is to become an engaged owner, there is a lot of non-aircraft knowledge about ownership that you can study up on right now. Unfortunately, most owners only prefer the aircraft specific info to learn about.;)
Click to expand...

I like to think I'm an engaged owner in everything I can. The biggest challenge is I don't know what I don't know. So I am open to any suggestions you might have on additional topics.

Adam
 
unsafervguy said:
Trama hawk has a life limit also, I seem to remember the number 12000. As usual, bell gives so good advice. I will add, choose your mechanic before a specific airplane. For example, if your looking at Comanches or bellancas you need a mechanic that knows them well. The biggest thing that you should run from is corrosion, it’s cancer and just as expensive.
Click to expand...

I grew up in the islands. I think corrosion is what I fear more then anything else.
 
Those of you mentioning other aircraft in your replies need to realize the OP isn't intimately familiar with more complicated maintenance issues, airplane model names, and particularly nicknames. While there is an immense amount of knowledge and information in the minds of POA members, it needs to be presented in a manner that the OP can understand. More complex issues might require more effective explanation.

For example, explaining what form corrosion takes and how it affects an airplane would be most helpful. If engine cylinder compressions are mentioned, a brief overview of what they are and what numbers are good will be a instructive to his search.

It appears that English isn't the OP's native language, so keep that in mind when replying. I hope masoric finds the perfect aircraft for his first purchase.
 
Last edited:
masoric said:
I like to think I'm an engaged owner in everything I can. The biggest challenge is I don't know what I don't know. So I am open to any suggestions you might have on additional topics.
Click to expand...
This is the document I recommend to new owners. It gives a good foundation which can be further investigated through other supporting documents. But how deeply engaged you wish to be is totally up to you. Regardless the buck always stops at the owner as referenced in 91.403.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/faa-h-8083-19A.pdf
masoric said:
I think corrosion is what I fear more then anything else.
Click to expand...
FWIW: Having worked on aircraft along the GOM and offshore, corrosion tends to be no different than any other visual type wear and tear item. At least in my opinion. But for comparison, I consider undocumented maintenance and over-stressed aircraft/systems to be more troublesome as they tend to be invisible or very difficult to discern.
 
masoric said:
I think maybe a shorter and simpler way to rephrase my post would be how can I better educate myself to judge condition?
Click to expand...

The FAA has found that aircraft aging is an important consideration, as you suggest Adam.
Some readings on this site may help you learn to assess conditions that are associated with age.
Good of you to plan way ahead, and to learn as much as you can about airplanes early in your studies.
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/cos/aging_aircraft/
 
Back when the AOPA had real conventions I heard a lecture from an FAA stress life expert and he said that older planes designed under CAR3 (I think that's the name) were stronger because the engineers overbuilt the structures to compensate for less certainty.

Also C-210's with struts do not have the risk of later cantilever wing models. There is that new AD about checking the lower strut attachment but I think any cracks are very rare and no failures. I have had my C-210D since 1971 and I love it and very low maintenance costs.
 
It is a rare occasion that a high time aircraft is a good deal.
 
3393RP said:
Those of you mentioning other aircraft in your replies need to realize the OP isn't intimately familiar with more complicated maintenance issues, airplane model names, and particularly nicknames. While there is an immense amount of knowledge and information in the minds of POA members, it needs to be presented in a manner that the OP can understand. More complex issues might require more effective explanation.

For example, explaining what form corrosion takes and how it affects an airplane would be most helpful. If engine cylinder compressions are mentioned, a brief overview of what they are and what numbers are good will be a instructive to his search.

It appears that English isn't the OP's native language, so keep that in mind when replying. I hope masoric finds the perfect aircraft for his first purchase.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate that concern and the simplification for me. Thankfully English is my first language I just have been averaging somewhere in the 12 conference calls a day range and there is almost never a time in Q4 where I am not multi tasking to a unhealthy degree. It leads to poor sentence structure and grammar (at least that is my excuse).

On the plus side I am mechanical to a good degree. I can, and have, rebuilt car engines I just do not know how much of that knowledge translates to aircrafts. Possibly from a more important perspective I am not going to be "comfortable" with it for quite some time. On a car if you forget to tighten the oil filter you pull over to the side of the road if something goes wrong. If you do that in an aircraft the likely scenario is someone getting hurt or worse.

I am much less knowledgeable around metal work and how to identify structural fatigue in an aircraft. Even things like. Can you strip and paint a 4x4 inch section of wing to repair scratches and other small items. Just trying to learn it all.

Adam
 
Bell206 said:
This is the document I recommend to new owners. It gives a good foundation which can be further investigated through other supporting documents. But how deeply engaged you wish to be is totally up to you. Regardless the buck always stops at the owner as referenced in 91.403.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/faa-h-8083-19A.pdf

FWIW: Having worked on aircraft along the GOM and offshore, corrosion tends to be no different than any other visual type wear and tear item. At least in my opinion. But for comparison, I consider undocumented maintenance and over-stressed aircraft/systems to be more troublesome as they tend to be invisible or very difficult to discern.
Click to expand...

Thank you I will read this.
 
Tom-D said:
It is a rare occasion that a high time aircraft is a good deal.
Click to expand...

My follow up question would be where do you draw that line? I suppose my goal would be to get 20 years out of what I buy with average per year flight time of up to 200 hours (reality is probably 100 but I like a buffer zone in my planning).

With a second question being what you mean by a good deal? Do you mean that I would not get value for what I put into it? Or simply that I will be disappointed in the experience?

If the aircraft is worth zero dollars at the end of my time with it I am at peace with that as long as its safe for my family.

Adam
 
masoric said:
My follow up question would be where do you draw that line? Adam
Click to expand...

It is impossible to tell, but old aircraft wouldn't be for sale if they were operating on a cheap budget, if all the parts were already replaced would they be cheap?
 
You really have to look at the whole picture and that includes reviewing logbooks. Of course there are exceptions, but if you look at a logbook and see nothing but 20 years of annual inspections with nothing more than oil changes then you should be a little skeptical of the aircraft's condition...
 
idahoflier said:
You really have to look at the whole picture and that includes reviewing logbooks. Of course there are exceptions, but if you look at a logbook and see nothing but 20 years of annual inspections with nothing more than oil changes then you should be a little skeptical of the aircraft's condition...
Click to expand...

*GASP* are you suggesting that people might be less then honest? :) No its a good point and thank you for mentioning it. I realize this is a massive topic that I can not expect folks to be able to dumb down in a forum post. I fully anticipate it taking years to be a minimum knowledge level and will still spend the rest of my life learning.

I have been thinking of trying to find a mechanic that would let me volunteer at their shop as manual labor just to get some more exposure.
 
masoric said:
*GASP* are you suggesting that people might be less then honest? :) No its a good point and thank you for mentioning it.
Click to expand...

Not so much the dishonest angle (although that certainly exists), speaking more of what maintenance SHOULD have been performed that wasn't. That can get expensive, especially if you find a lot of AD's that haven't been complied with...
 
masoric said:
I am not terribly concerned with retail value as one of the reasons I will be renting so long is to end up in my forever plane for my first purchase (that may be naïve) .
Click to expand...
It is.
masoric said:
I think maybe a shorter and simpler way to rephrase my post would be how can I better educate myself to judge condition?
Click to expand...
Experience. There is no shortcut. There's lots of options for getting that experience and not all of them involve being an owner yourself. But all of them take time.
 
Tantalum said:
I think you are right. The Cirrus and Tiger also have limits, at least on the wing. They're composite and their fatigue life is less well know so these are very conservative limits.
Click to expand...
The Rockwell Commander 112 was the first Part 23-certified lightplane (then known as the "North American Rockwell Aero Commander 112", thenkyewverymuch), and its wing service life is just under 7,000 hours. The number varies with the other Commander models, some up to close to 20,000 hours. These are not composite either; nor are the Tomahawk or the Tiger.
 
*fiberglass/not metal
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
No idea how they came up with these odd numbers. Surprised it isn't "14,812 hours, 12 minutes and 21 seconds."
Click to expand...
I believe the life limit hours were based on a mathematical calculation per an FAA report back in the 70s. Since it had various parameters (EWT, configurations, etc.) vs actual flight testing they came up with odd numbers. There were several Commander articles/tech sheets that detailed this.
Tantalum said:
Can that be incrementally extended?
Click to expand...
I had heard years ago that someone was working on an STC to extend the limit. But don't know anything else. Considering the Commanders were never a "mainstream" model I doubt a lot of them are even close to the service limit.
 
One must never forget that airplanes for sale are often being sold by people who can't afford them anymore. That means, too often, that they've been cheaping out on the inspections and maintenance for years. I've had too many encounters with airplanes like that, and too many disgusted new owners. That first annual is sometimes a shocker.

A good indication is the FAA's Airworthiness Directives database. Check the airframe ADs, engine ADs, propeller ADs, and appliance ADs to get an idea of what might be lurking. The logs are supposed to be comprehensive enough to list every AD ever written against that airplane and its equipment, and whether or not the AD was applicable and how it was resolved if applicable. I've often found unaddressed ADs, and sometimes it's not cheap to rectify that. Sometimes an AD is listed, with absolutely no information as to what was done about it.

The 210 has its problems. Spar cracking was addressed by AD in about 2013. The center section spar carrythrough is another hassle; it corrodes, sometimes enough to junk it, and it goes undetected because mechanics don't take the time to open the headliner and get in there properly and inspect it. Or the owner doesn't want to pay for that time. And new carrythroughs are pretty much unavailable, so you have an expensive lawn ornament. The 177 has the same problem. A GOOD prebuy can avoid much of that. And it will take more than a day to do a good prebuy on many models. If it's an hour or two, you might as well save your money and not get one at all.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The 210 has its problems. Spar cracking was addressed by AD in about 2013. The center section spar carrythrough is another hassle; it corrodes, sometimes enough to junk it, and it goes undetected because mechanics don't take the time to open the headliner and get in there properly and inspect it. Or the owner doesn't want to pay for that time. And new carrythroughs are pretty much unavailable, so you have an expensive lawn ornament. The 177 has the same problem. A GOOD prebuy can avoid much of that. And it will take more than a day to do a good prebuy on many models. If it's an hour or two, you might as well save your money and not get one at all.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Which C-210? Mine has a strut and no spar cracking. These models are still being made, sort of, since the C-206 is largely a fixed gear C-210 D through F.
 
Snowmass said:
Yes and no. Which C-210? Mine has a strut and no spar cracking. These models are still being made, sort of, since the C-206 is largely a fixed gear C-210 D through F.
Click to expand...
It's the cantilevered wing 210 that has the spar issues. Totally different airframe, basically.
 
Also, cracking is due to repetitive high stresses not a continuous high stress from a heavily loaded airplane in smooth air. So it's the history of the type of flying the airplane has seen that matters more than flight hours. Fortunately for me I fly mostly winter for skiing when the air here is smooth.
 
Most important is to buy a type certificated aircraft that has been maintained by certificated technicians.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top