Interpreting aircraft quality from sales listings

ArrowFlyer86

ArrowFlyer86

Pattern Altitude
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 17, 2019
Messages
1,933
Location
Chicago suburbs
Display Name
Display name:
The Little Arrow That Could
I'm wondering what sort of general heuristics people use in deciding whether to pursue/reject an aircraft for purchase? (before you have logs and other stuff)

When looking at aircraft listings I'm always weary of a few situations. The most common 3 that give me pause:
1) The "0 SMOH!!!" listing if it's not done by a well known shop with a great reputation. I'm always suspicious of those enthusiastic postings since they also usually price it high for the 0h engine.
2) The "low time engine" that's already had major work. Saw a bonanza today that got fresh cam+lifters+cylinders after 400 SMOH. On one hand, sounds like they maintained it, on the other hand, why would an aircraft need that after only 400h unless it was a bad OH or you beat the shi* out of it?
3) The complex experimental airplane that took 2+ years to build, and less than 50 TTAF to sell. Makes me seriously question the craftsmanship and pride of work. If I built it, I'd probably spend more time with it than my own children (I know I'm a terrible person).

As I look around for an upgrade I'm wondering if I'm being unfairly, prematurely judgmental and missing good opportunities or if other, more experienced people also have similar criteria where they're like "nope, I'm not gambling on this one". If so, what are those criteria/heuristics?
 
I see #3 a lot, and place the same construction on it. I am sure there are lots out there who prefer to build over fly -- but I have no way to tell who is who.
 
I see the guy on Barnstormers that's been advertising the same plane at the same price for over a year with the banner "price reduced" when no such thing has happened. A couple of friends went to look at it and they know why it's not selling ... :eek:
 
I don't really have a set minimum or maximum of anything when I look at ads. I know what kind of plane I want (e.g. four seater, min. 160 HP, min. 700 lbs useful, etc.) and have a good idea of makes and models that fit the bill. Once I find an ad, I usually stay as open minded as possible. High time engine but priced right? That's fine. Low time engine and priced right, even better. I am more likely to look for between the lines cues because some people don't really want to sell and are just a huge waste of time to deal with. Some people are just terrible to deal with and I wouldn't want to meet or do a transaction with them. I look at how the ad is written which kind of gives me an idea of the person might be but if the plane is interesting I'll still give them a call or text to confirm (or reject) my assumption I initially had.

I've seen ads like: 1966 Cessna 172, great plane, airworthy, call for more info.

I wouldn't call him/her. Unless it has all vital information (bare minimum: TTSN, TSMO, what engine is in it, last annual inspection date) and at least a clear photo of the outside (the more, the better) and of all seats and the panel, I won't call. I just feel like if someone is too lazy to put up a decent ad for their plane, either they don't really want to sell OR if they do and can't get over themselves to put together a decent ad, how was that plane maintained during their ownership?

Long story short, I read a lot between the lines but keep an open mind if the advertised plane is what I'm after, at least until the first phone or text conversation. I walked away from several good deals simply because the seller wasn't very pleasant to deal with by phone or text and I don't regret having walked away from those deals one bit. On the flip side, I'm still in touch with every person I ever bought a plane from or sold a plane to.

I would probably see this differently if I was in the business of buying and selling planes though ;-)
 
Any aircraft that has not been flown 50/hrs a year over the last 3 years, a recent overhaul with less than 50 hrs, a recent change of owners where the new owner put less than a 100 hrs on plane since purchase. I like to buy from an owner who has flown the plane regularly, been maintained regularly, been annualed regularly. Buying a plane that was owned but not flown is a red flag to me.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
I've seen ads like: 1966 Cessna 172, great plane, airworthy, call for more info.

I wouldn't call him/her.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends how badly you want a plane.

I've seen plenty of ads like that. Usually posted by an older person who still thinks they are paying by the word in a newspaper, or a family member who knows nothing about airplanes other than grandpa wants to sell his and doesn't understand the interweb. Could be junk, could be good. Anyone can buy the perfect plane if they have lots of money. Finding a creampuff for a deal can take a little effort on the buyer's part.
 
Some of the best aircraft I’ve bought have come from some of the worst ads that most here would reject. I don’t think there is a one size fits all approach that can be applied to every ad and every aircraft, especially if you’re looking for a type of aircraft that there may only be one or two of for sale at any given time.
 
If a plane is full of garbage/empty bottles/etc in the photos I assume not very well taken care of and or not interested in selling.
 
With experimental, just ask how many they've built. Sometimes they build, fly, and decide to go for the next shiny thing. It's like a drug if you're a tinker. Buikd and sell to finance the next aircraft.
 
tyndall said:
I guess it depends how badly you want a plane.

I've seen plenty of ads like that. Usually posted by an older person who still thinks they are paying by the word in a newspaper, or a family member who knows nothing about airplanes other than grandpa wants to sell his and doesn't understand the interweb. Could be junk, could be good. Anyone can buy the perfect plane if they have lots of money. Finding a creampuff for a deal can take a little effort on the buyer's part.
Click to expand...

100% agreed. That's why I wrote that I'd probably think differently about my statement if I was in the business of buying and selling planes. But right now, I'm pretty busy with my work and when I'm in the market for a plane, I don't necessarily want to waste too much time on ads that may or may not be gems. I've done this before and more often than not these type of ads are a waste of time. Sometimes due to the fact that the seller really doesn't care, or in your example, you have someone on the other end who doesn't easily give up information/details (probably because they don't know i.e. grandson, older age, etc.) and things just take twice the time and effort to get all the details to make a decision.
 
Daleandee said:
I see the guy on Barnstormers that's been advertising the same plane at the same price for over a year with the banner "price reduced" when no such thing has happened. A couple of friends went to look at it and they know why it's not selling ... :eek:
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t happen to be a Skybolt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NordicDave said:
#4 Minimal number of grainy pictures, especially those taken in the hangar
Click to expand...

I’m working on one of those right now. The buyer bought it based on the seller’s mechanic’s word that the plane was “excellent” and a few terrible photos. The airplane wasn’t “excellent” but I’d categorize it as slightly above average. The last time it flew was when I ferried it home. It has been apart in the shop since, because I’m correcting all the airworthiness issues.

I think this transaction might have been stopped if the buyer had received detailed photos. They wouldn’t necessarily have to be included in the ad but they should be available for prospective buyers. When I broker aircraft I usually make sure there is some sort of information packet I can email to everyone. It amazes me how many brokers don’t do that.
 
2 recurring issues that cause me to shake my head:

Useful load not listed. Bonus points for listings with list of options and features that are multiple pages long but no mention of useful load. Double bonus when aforementioned list includes cigarette lighter USB, sun visor, adjustable seat, or other obviously-stock items.

Call for price.
 
Insufficient information not in the ad. If the basic info is missing or you have to call to get it,be careful.
 
mondtster said:
In my experience, most owners don’t know what their useful load is so I’m sure it doesn’t occur to them that someone might want to know that information.
Click to expand...

That never occurred to me. Thank you for the info.
 
As a general rule, the best airplane to buy is the one that is never advertised. Word of mouth through local pilot organizations, talking to A&P/IAs who may have customer looking to sell, etc.

Most common scenario is a well maintained plane owned by someone who either lost their medical or desire to fly while older.

Every situation is unique, but the worst one is a recent paint job. That is almost always hiding something not good, and it will take a few years for the corrosion under the paint to start blistering through. Everything else can be fixed with money, but a rotting airframe is a problem that will haunt you.
 
mondtster said:
In my experience, most owners don’t know what their useful load is so I’m sure it doesn’t occur to them that someone might want to know that information.
Click to expand...
I'll never forget the first Six we went to see. I was specifically looking for a high useful load, and when I flipped through the poh, the w&b report was so old that it was from the installation of radios that had since been removed. They said "we just never worry about it... this thing will lift anything you can fit inside! " :rolleyes: Then they proceeded to tell me how they'd load up their wives and dogs and bags...

That was an eye opening experience for me. They called their mechanic while we went to lunch... he couldn't find it either. Obviously we passed...
 
Jim K said:
I'll never forget the first Six we went to see. I was specifically looking for a high useful load, and when I flipped through the poh, the w&b report was so old that it was from the installation of radios that had since been removed. They said "we just never worry about it... this thing will lift anything you can fit inside! " :rolleyes: Then they proceeded to tell me how they'd load up their wives and dogs and bags...

That was an eye opening experience for me. They called their mechanic while we went to lunch... he couldn't find it either. Obviously we passed...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, what you describe is all too common. There’s a guy who owns a Cherokee 6 at my home airport that does the same thing. They also do the same thing in a Malibu - I’ve seen 6 full grown adults, two smaller kids, and all their luggage come out of it before. Gas tanks are always full on departure too, because they need it all for their trips.

If they can’t find a weight and balance report there is likely other paperwork missing as well. It’s probably best to move on or at least plan on spending a lot of time recreating paperwork that went missing. I seem to have to do a lot of that.
 
mondtster said:
If they can’t find a weight and balance report there is likely other paperwork missing as well. It’s probably best to move on or at least plan on spending a lot of time recreating paperwork that went missing. I seem to have to do a lot of that.
Click to expand...

My A&P/IA once told me that at least half his job in doing prebuy inspections+annuals for new aircraft he hasn't seen before is being a paperwork detective and having to dig up crap that owners had lost long, long ago. That seems all too common.
 
Tom Wells said:
My A&P/IA once told me that at least half his job in doing prebuy inspections+annuals for new aircraft he hasn't seen before is being a paperwork detective and having to dig up crap that owners had lost long, long ago. That seems all too common.
Click to expand...

I don’t know why but a lot of people can’t be bothered with properly caring for important paperwork. I showed up to ferry one airplane home and the guy had thrown away the airworthiness certificate and flight manual because apparently he didn’t think it was important. I also went to look at a helicopter that apparently was constructed of parts swept up off the floor and fabricated paperwork. At least that helicopter had some paper for all the parts.

I always laugh when people claim they have all the logs for an aircraft and start wringing their hands over the devaluation of said aircraft when some of the logs are missing. For any given aircraft that has some age to it, I guarantee some paper is missing or wrong.
 
mondtster said:
In my experience, most owners don’t know what their useful load is so I’m sure it doesn’t occur to them that someone might want to know that information.
Click to expand...

And if they do and it’s not good they’ll leave off.

Some planes are more usefully load challenged, Mooneys are famous for it.
 
mondtster said:
I don’t know why but a lot of people can’t be bothered with properly caring for important paperwork. I showed up to ferry one airplane home and the guy had thrown away the airworthiness certificate and flight manual because apparently he didn’t think it was important. I also went to look at a helicopter that apparently was constructed of parts swept up off the floor and fabricated paperwork. At least that helicopter had some paper for all the parts.

I always laugh when people claim they have all the logs for an aircraft and start wringing their hands over the devaluation of said aircraft when some of the logs are missing. For any given aircraft that has some age to it, I guarantee some paper is missing or wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm terrible with paperwork myself. I grew up with computers and work in the music/tech space so all my "important" documents are stored digitally. When there is anything that requires paperwork with actual papers, I'm terrible at it. I know that I am, hence I let me mechanic and wife handle all the paper based logs. What I don't get is why we still do all of this part tracking and maintenance entries on paper. With today's tech, there are so many, more simple solutions to keep aircraft and part records than what we're doing today.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
What I don't get is why we still do all of this part tracking and maintenance entries on paper. With today's tech, there are so many, more simple solutions to keep aircraft and part records than what we're doing today.
Click to expand...

Three letters: FAA
 
BPM said:
2 recurring issues that cause me to shake my head:

Useful load not listed. Bonus points for listings with list of options and features that are multiple pages long but no mention of useful load. Double bonus when aforementioned list includes cigarette lighter USB, sun visor, adjustable seat, or other obviously-stock items.

Call for price.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I am looking for a Cub and nobody lists the empty weight.
 
DesertNomad said:
Exactly. I am looking for a Cub and nobody lists the empty weight.
Click to expand...

There’s probably one or two common reasons for that.

I deal with a lot of Super Cubs and the paperwork is often sketchy on them.
 
So there is a 69 Skylane for sale. At the very bottom is says "Older Airframe Missing Logs - Start at 2003 to Present"

A 77 Skylane has "Missing Airframe Logs 1977-2014".

At what point - if ever - do these become something someone would buy?

Missing logs = “take a real hard look” or “never” ?
 
Last edited:
Fresh paint job is a red flag for me. Too often done cheaply, and done to disguise an otherwise neglected airframe.
 
BPM said:
2 recurring issues that cause me to shake my head:

Useful load not listed. Bonus points for listings with list of options and features that are multiple pages long but no mention of useful load. Double bonus when aforementioned list includes cigarette lighter USB, sun visor, adjustable seat, or other obviously-stock items.

Call for price.
Click to expand...
This especially irks me on planes with notoriously low or highly variable useful loads. Ie: Ercoupes, AA1's...
Or heavily modded planes such as a C150 with the O320, etc.
midwestpa24 said:
Fresh paint job is a red flag for me. Too often done cheaply, and done to disguise an otherwise neglected airframe.
Click to expand...
Fresh paint, new OH, but scuzzy upholstery... Welcome to someone's salvage/rebuild-a-wreck project.
 
If you want a really nice plane that you know inside & out ... build it yourself. :)
 
Todd82 said:
This especially irks me on planes with notoriously low or highly variable useful loads.
Click to expand...

…and all the PA-32 variants. And it’s shocking to learn (from participants on this thread) that one likely reason is useful load is unknown to the pilot/owner. WTF!?
 
Last edited:
The word fresh anywhere in the ad is suspect to me. It’s far to overused and often a joke.
 
WDD said:
So there is a 69 Skylane for sale. At the very bottom is says "Older Airframe Missing Logs - Start at 2003 to Present"

A 77 Skylane has "Missing Airframe Logs 1977-2014".

At what point - if ever - do these become something someone would buy?

Missing logs = “take a real hard look” or “never” ?
Click to expand...
Meh. As long as all the AD's have been verified, stuff that happened 10 years ago doesn't matter that much. Of course these planes sell at a discount. If it was what I was looking for and it passed an inspection, I'd be a buyer. The risk you take is if something like the piper wing spar AD comes up.... if hours can't be proven through logs you have to do the inspection.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
They don’t…
In fact I have worked at places where all the aircraft records were digital.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Every time I get something done with several mechanics, it’s paper this and paper that and make sure this goes into the AF logbook, but this paper into the engine logbook but not in the prop logbook, that’s this paper. Also, every time I source a part (I’ve done an engine rebuild on my last plane and a interior rebuild on my current plane), the mechanics always tell me to look out that the part has this paper or that paper otherwise they can’t install it. None of this was available digitally. Also, I have to carry a journey logbook with me when flying more than 25 miles from home base, which is paper based. Could I create a digital journey logbook and would an inspector at a potential ramp check accept my digital journey logbook? My plane is C- registered but I doubt there is much difference between FAA and TC rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top