Low time on plane

[SkyHog]

I know most people here believe that an older plane without many hours on it is just as bad, if not worse, than an old plane with many many hours on it.

My question is - where do you draw the line? I saw a plane that I liked that was built in 1964 with 3100 hours since new. Is that too few?

 

[Tom-D]

I know most people here believe that an older plane without many hours on it is just as bad, if not worse, than an old plane with many many hours on it.

My question is - where do you draw the line? I saw a plane that I liked that was built in 1964 with 3100 hours since new. Is that too few?

This is the old Hours Vs Condidtion

I believe that an aircraft can be in very good condition with very few hours, and many years, it's all about care and history.

My 1937 F-24-G has 1985 hours TT. It was pretty nasty, but won't be when I get it flying.

I just placed an engine on a 1949 C-170-A, It is beautiful, the inner surfaces are like new, the controls are tight it has never been in an accident, not even any hangar rash. it has just over 2300 hours TT. This aircraft has been in this family since 1954.

Last summer I was asked to inspect a 1957 C-172, it had been in a hangar since 1964, TT 1128, it was a total waste of hangar rent. nothing was left, corrosion had taken the aircraft.

The CHP sold their C-185 fleet a couple years ago, most of their aircraft had over 25,000 hours TT all had been maintained to part 135 requirements. The fleet brought top dollar, they were really nice.

It is a case of care and history. equals condition.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Disuse has more of a pronounced effect on the health of the engine than the airframe. For both the airframe and engine, it matters a lot whether the downtime is relatively evenly spaced, or if it was idle for several years during its lifetime. I assume the engine isn't from 1964 (that would be excessively old, IMHO). Was the aircraft in a dry climate most of the time? Hangared? Corrosion-treated?

Many parts, such as rubber seals, plastics, etc, will degrade with time regardless of hours, so the low time won't buy you any advantage there - but may buy you headaches if the plane has been infrequently used and these parts have not been changed out.

All that said, there are many good deals on older airplanes - many are better than decades-newer examples of the same model.

Jeff

 

[Dan Deutsch]

Every airplane is different. When you are talking the majoriy of the GA fleet which is greater than 25 years old there is no way to make a blanket statement about a particular year model or fleet in terms of condition.

Face it - for the average GA pilot we are restorers and owners of classic if not antique aircraft. You gotta know what you are getting into.

 

[PoAdeleted5]

The gist of it is that "low time" is not necessarily a plus.

My plane has 2530 hours TT since 1965. In some ways, it is very good. In other ways, it shows signs of neglect. It should restore up nicely though.

The idea is if you see 100hrs per year on the aircraft, then it has been active, flying, maintained and annualed every year since new. An active plane in good shape has had a lot of care over the years, things have been replaced on condition (hopefully).

Sitting and doing nothing is not good for an airplane, especially if the inactivity is coupled with a lack of ongoing care.

 

[pete177]

The concern about not having enough hours for a given time period has to do more with engine condition than airframe. An unused airframe as long as it's cared for properly (maybe hangered, corrosion x'd and kept free of wild life) will not likely develop any really expensive problem. An unused motor, if not preserved, will develop internal corrosion that will manifest itself in a few hundred hours after you begin flying it likely requiring an overhaul. Engine manufacturers establish time limits as well as hour limits for tbo for that reason, amoung others. Again, buying mid time motors, either hours or time, is a big gamble as far as I'm concerned. If you've just gotta do it, then buy one thats had 100 hours a year put on it, preferably a couple hours a week as opposed to long gaps between flights.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

My 1976 Archer II had 2,400 on it when I bought it a few years ago. No unusual maintenance except for the prop which was red tagged at the annual in March -- all those years of dressing it with a file, I guess, narrowed the chord near the tips.