I'd buy it, and fly the pants off of it, but the logbooks, maintenance and prebuy would have to be 100% perfect, and it must not cost more than $18K.
At that price, it's basically disposable.
This is exactly what we're looking at actually. We cannot afford a $25,000 - $35,000 aircraft. This is to finish out our primary training, and give us something to fly around for weekend travel and dinner flights. We're not expecting to resell it and get back what we paid.
Pipeline plane? Look for smoking rivets, pull the strut and wing fairings and pull the bolts one at a time and inspect them as well as the bosses for wear or other defects. If that all scopes out good then I would look at doing the eddy current inspection. Oh yeah, don't forget the control cable pulleys, they wear and crack.
I should have been more specific. Survey use over open water. Not over land, pipelines, etc. So I would imagine remarkably less bumping and thumping? Not saying that means it doesn't warrant inspection though.
I'd love to see a Cessna that age that has zero corrosion. It might not be bad, but I'm willing to bet when you do a pre-buy you'll find something.
20k hours isn't the end of the world, but you will want to make sure to get a thorough pre-buy and be prepared to say no. In addition, you may find some minor maintenance items that pop up a bit more than with a lower time frame. I wouldn't be worried about the spar breaking, but all the high time Cessna's I've dealt with seem to spend a little more time in the shop than the low time ones--they just get tired.
I'm sure there is some. As there would be on any aircraft. Excessive and unreasonable would be what I'm looking. I get the impression from speaking with the owner that there will actually be less than usual. Also, I don't think total time would be a corrosion factor. It doesn't corrode faster because you fly more. If anything, that should reduce corrosion since it is constantly blown out?
I wouldn't say that.
If this was a rare aircraft I'd entertain the idea of a 20,000hr airframe, but it's a 172.
Go through a rock and you'll probably hit 3 of them at any given airport. There is no good reason to compromise when buying such a plentiful aircraft.
FYI the OP should stick with the Grumman, he'd be way better off.
Yes, there are lots of 172's out there. And all outside our price range. Those within our price range are MX disasters that will cost us anything we save. This appears so far to be an immaculately maintained aircraft, which if not for the high total time, would be a $28-30k purchase. If we can do our diligence on the MX, verify the airframe is solid, we're winning.
The Grumman we were looking at a few weeks ago as a trade didn't work out. And upon deeper thought, we decided that it wouldn't be a good move. We have minimal useful load on our 150. Barely enough fuel to loop the pattern a few times for the heavier of us three. And that gives us minimal practical use after primary training. Swapping it for a Yankee wouldn't change any of that. The only thing that Yankee trade would have given us is a lower time engine with a fresh annual.
We talked about it for a long time. What do we need now, what do we want later, and define "later". We decided if we're going to change planes, we want it to be in a similar type, with better performance and better useful load. We want a plane that we can keep and use practically for the next 3-7 or more years. Our 150 or a Yankee flying around teetering over the edge of gross weight with 1.5 people in it is not that plane. A 172 fits the bill perfectly and we all have experience in one already now.
And we decided that the only way it will be practical is if we can take it home for < $20,000. That greatly limits the the field of available 172s. The ones that are in that price range are often have questionable or objectionable MX issues. What we have here is a 172 in the price range, well equipped, with what appears to be immaculate MX. If we can verify it is in good airworthy condition, and not about to fold in half, we win.
