ready for the "told ya so"

Tom-D said:
Depends -- "A" model? if the crank is bad you just scrap the engine and upgrade to the "D" for the "D" plan and extra 2500 for the starter drive. cylinders are now at a grand each. and always replace the lifters & hydraulic units with new, case re-work is 750.00 if the gears fail they are 2500 each. You can look up the part prices at Aircraft specialities Services. Need a new crank? add 8k.
average market price now about 25k.
Click to expand...
It is a "D" model, but it sounds like we're past that now.
 
mtuomi said:
Catastrophic engine failures are very rare. By and far most overhauls are triggered by excessive oil consumption, engine starting to "make metal" or other creeping symptoms.
Click to expand...
I considered an oil test, but based on the overwhelming direction of the counsel here I think I'm going to move on.
 
Tom-D said:
Depends -- "A" model? if the crank is bad you just scrap the engine and upgrade to the "D" for the "D" plan and extra 2500 for the starter drive. cylinders are now at a grand each. and always replace the lifters & hydraulic units with new, case re-work is 750.00 if the gears fail they are 2500 each. You can look up the part prices at Aircraft specialities Services. Need a new crank? add 8k.
average market price now about 25k.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if we assume the worst case scenario, we can run into mid 20's. But I'd still say $20 is a healthy budget to overhaul one. Less if you spend some time and locate parts from other sources as well. As with everything in aviation, it can bite you with a bill larger than expected. Cracked case, broken crank etc where nothing even gives you core value, that'll be what, 30+. But how often that really happens...
 
Hoping to get my deposit back now. I have his books, a paid for annual and a witness to the misrepresentation.....
 
Matt C said:
I considered an oil test, but based on the overwhelming direction of the counsel here I think I'm going to move on.
Click to expand...

Oil analysis is more about trend monitoring than snapshot testing.

$25k is a very low budget for a 172. Sounds like you didn't get lucky this time.
 
mtuomi said:
Yeah, if we assume the worst case scenario, we can run into mid 20's. But I'd still say $20 is a healthy budget to overhaul one. Less if you spend some time and locate parts from other sources as well. As with everything in aviation, it can bite you with a bill larger than expected. Cracked case, broken crank etc where nothing even gives you core value, that'll be what, 30+. But how often that really happens...
Click to expand...
When you get hit with that, you simply buy a good used engine for 8-10k and instal it.
 
Matt C said:
Hoping to get my deposit back now. I have his books, a paid for annual and a witness to the misrepresentation.....
Click to expand...
If you can't ,, buy it. When you are not buying for re-sale the books are nothing.
 
I wouldn't put much value on a 1500 hour discrepancy in TTAF. It's still a low time airframe and the price is very low.
 
mtuomi said:
Heart of the West engines. http://www.hotwaircraft.com/no-surprise-pricing.html
An engine shop, people seem to have divided opinions about them and I have no personal experience, but I'm sure they will sell two dozen engines for Jim for $20k each.
Click to expand...

Take a look back. You only missed one small letter, and that letter is "k". You said you would overhaul my o-300 for $20 and I'm accepting your offer. You actually said it 3 times, so it obviously wasn't a mistake.

The last time I overhauled an O-300 (admittedly about 30 years ago) it cost me $2800 in parts and $1400 in machine work. And that was to new limits.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
Take a look back. You only missed one small letter, and that letter is "k". You said you would overhaul my o-300 for $20 and I'm accepting your offer. You actually said it 3 times, so it obviously wasn't a mistake.

The last time I overhauled an O-300 (admittedly about 30 years ago) it cost me $2800 in parts and $1400 in machine work. And that was to new limits.

Jim
Click to expand...

It wasn't a mistake. I'll say 20AMU next time. $20'000 is obviously what I meant.
 
20k will get you a 20k airplane. There is a good chance you will have to put more money into somewhere. I had a potential student that just bought a plane for 10k and he bragged about it was a low hour engine. He had to dump in a lot more money for electrical problems, flight control rigging, leaks, to name a few problems. His goal was to use it to get his PPL and sell it. He lost out on that decision.

If you see something too good to be true pricewise. It usually is.
 
TommyG said:
20k will get you a 20k airplane. There is a good chance you will have to put more money into somewhere. I had a potential student that just bought a plane for 10k and he bragged about it was a low hour engine. He had to dump in a lot more money for electrical problems, flight control rigging, leaks, to name a few problems. His goal was to use it to get his PPL and sell it. He lost out on that decision.

If you see something too good to be true pricewise. It usually is.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear it.
 
Do old logs mean anything to a buyer that is buying to keep and fly? A smart buyer will have the aircraft inspected and find if all the proper documents are aboard and it has had an annual. Then it simply a matter of material condition of the machine.
 
Tom-D said:
Do old logs mean anything to a buyer that is buying to keep and fly? A smart buyer will have the aircraft inspected and find if all the proper documents are aboard and it has had an annual. Then it simply a matter of material condition of the machine.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
mtuomi said:
It wasn't a mistake. I'll say 20AMU next time. $20'000 is obviously what I meant.
Click to expand...

Typing a comma and three more zeros is work! Adding a K is easier, but there's still a bit of sweat involved.
 
Keep us posted, Matt. These kinds of decisions are always difficult. Usually it boils down to how much risk you are comfortable with. And, even if you search nationwide and find a real jewel in Arizona, there is still no guarantee it won't eat a valve on the way home. Good luck, whatever direction you decide to go.
 
By the way, I don't think you told us whether or not this airplane has been flying or sitting, and if sitting, how long.
 
If the airframe is corrosion free 20k is a fair price.

If you let the fear of what may happen keep you from buying then you'll never buy one.

Both of my engine failures came from aircraft with recent overhauls. While an old engine may be tired it is proven.

Really dig into this thing though with a borescope looking for corrosion in the rudder, elevator, wings and crankcase if possible (may require some disassembly) and if all that passes tech make sure to look under the headliner and carpet for corrosion too.
 
Matt C said:
...What I am looking for - I have around $25k to spend comfortably and I have decided that a 172 would fit my use parameters well. 150s are undersized. I don't need a pretty interior, I would prefer a decent exterior to help stave off degradation of the airframe. I won't have money for paint for quite a while. Maintenance and hangar budget are no problem.
Click to expand...
That's a little on the low side to spend on a 172...not that it can't be done, but it will not be easy. One problem I've found is that "ugly planes" (with bad paint and interiors) are TREATED like ugly planes, and usually don't get the best maintenance, while "pretty planes" tend to have the better maintenance. There are always exceptions, of course.
Another thing I've learned over the years is just adding $5k to your budget can make a world of difference to what you can buy. If you can't add $5k, could you consider something other than a 172?
 
jaybee said:
If the airframe is corrosion free 20k is a fair price.

If you let the fear of what may happen keep you from buying then you'll never buy one.

Both of my engine failures came from aircraft with recent overhauls. While an old engine may be tired it is proven.

Really dig into this thing though with a borescope looking for corrosion in the rudder, elevator, wings and crankcase if possible (may require some disassembly) and if all that passes tech make sure to look under the headliner and carpet for corrosion too.
Click to expand...
I was involved in the annual with the A&P IA. Did standard annual and all checked out good - no visible corrosion and one slightly low (68/80) cylinder. Post annual run-up was good. I walked away with my deposit back at well under 20k due to much of the insight that I received here, but I appreciate what you mean by the fear of the "may happen". I have a hard time trusting new things and prefer proven as you indicated. Still thinking about taking his offer, but wanted more time to think it through. I always do stuff impulsively and don't want to with this.
 
tawood said:
That's a little on the low side to spend on a 172...not that it can't be done, but it will not be easy. One problem I've found is that "ugly planes" (with bad paint and interiors) are TREATED like ugly planes, and usually don't get the best maintenance, while "pretty planes" tend to have the better maintenance. There are always exceptions, of course.
Another thing I've learned over the years is just adding $5k to your budget can make a world of difference to what you can buy. If you can't add $5k, could you consider something other than a 172?
Click to expand...
I agree, I have a bit of concern for things that don't look cared for. I passed on a Cherokee a short while ago because when I went to look at it the top half had been painted and the bottom was all old paint. It was sitting on three flat tires, had empty tanks, wasn't tied down, the keys were in it and the spark plugs that I could see were all rusty. All of this after a "fresh annual". I don't mind doing a new interior over time or paint maybe, but I think you're right on with the poor treatment assumption. BTW - $17,500 gets you into that beauty.
 
somorris said:
By the way, I don't think you told us whether or not this airplane has been flying or sitting, and if sitting, how long.
Click to expand...
Sitting in a hangar since August when the annual ran out. It flew ~200 hours in the preceding three years or so.
 
Matt C said:
I agree, I have a bit of concern for things that don't look cared for. I passed on a Cherokee a short while ago because when I went to look at it the top half had been painted and the bottom was all old paint. It was sitting on three flat tires, had empty tanks, wasn't tied down, the keys were in it and the spark plugs that I could see were all rusty. All of this after a "fresh annual". I don't mind doing a new interior over time or paint maybe, but I think you're right on with the poor treatment assumption. BTW - $17,500 gets you into that beauty.
Click to expand...
Have you considered a Tri-pacer? I've never owned one, mainly because when I had "tri-pacer money" to spend, I was only in the market for a two-seater. Later, when I needed more than 2 seats, I had more to spend (and my girlfriend doesn't like them). Personally, I love tri-pacers for their function and their typically lower price tags.
 
mtuomi said:
I wouldn't put much value on a 1500 hour discrepancy in TTAF. It's still a low time airframe and the price is very low.
Click to expand...
It was the 5100 hour engine that turned me off more. Based on the originally posted 3500TTAF, I was assuming a 3500 hour engine with one overhaul. Post #14 above clarifies the real numbers. At 5142 I assume it's probably on overhaul number 2 or 3....
 
tawood said:
Have you considered a Tri-pacer? I've never owned one, mainly because when I had "tri-pacer money" to spend, I was only in the market for a two-seater. Later, when I needed more than 2 seats, I had more to spend (and my girlfriend doesn't like them). Personally, I love tri-pacers for their function and their typically lower price tags.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why, but my CFI isn't crazy about them. He suggested I try to stick with 150/172 first or a PA28 so that's what I've been looking at. I guess I don't know too much about them.
 
Did your CFI say why? Some people (like my girlfriend) find them ugly....others base their opinion on the lower horsepower models...it came with either a 160 hp, 150 hp, or underpowered 135 hp or 125 hp in the four seat models.
 
Not really. I suspect that part of it was the commonality of parts for the others and the rest may have been the underpowered model. My wife would also appreciate a not so ugly airplane - I can spend whatever I want to as long as she likes what I bring home....
 
Matt C said:
Not really. I suspect that part of it was the commonality of parts for the others and the rest may have been the underpowered model. My wife would also appreciate a not so ugly airplane - I can spend whatever I want to as long as she likes what I bring home....
Click to expand...
I know you said the 150 is undersized (which as a past 150 owner, for most purposes I agree), have you considered one of the "large" two seaters, ie. Skipper or Traumahawk? I had a tomahawk, and it was very roomy, and usually $5-10k cheaper than a comparable 172.
And for what ever reason, my girlfriend thinks that tomahawks are adorable.
 
17500 for an airworthy corrosion-free 172 is a bargain, doesn't matter if it has 3500 or 8500 hours on the engine.
 
Matt C said:
I was involved in the annual with the A&P IA. Did standard annual and all checked out good - no visible corrosion and one slightly low (68/80) cylinder. [...]
Click to expand...

This sounds really good. I am actually positively surprised about the high compression values and the relatively recent overhaul. I think there is quite a chance that you can fly it for quite a few years until the engine needs an overhaul (or a used low time engine).


mtuomi said:
17500 for an airworthy corrosion-free 172 is a bargain, doesn't matter if it has 3500 or 8500 hours on the engine.
Click to expand...

+1
 
mtuomi said:
17500 for an airworthy corrosion-free 172 is a bargain, doesn't matter if it has 3500 or 8500 hours on the engine.
Click to expand...
Yes it kinda does,, that 8500 for engine is going to be scrutinized much more than the 3500. But then again we can assume that the 8500 hour engine must have new parts in. or should I say "newer".
But as always you got a Pandora's box.
 
Tom-D said:
Yes it kinda does,, that 8500 for engine is going to be scrutinized much more than the 3500. But then again we can assume that the 8500 hour engine must have new parts in. or should I say "newer".
But as always you got a Pandora's box.
Click to expand...

pfffft

you can buy a "remanufactured" "zero time" engine straight from Continental and it may have 10000 hours on the crankcase for all you know but everyone feels all fuzzy warm about it because its "zero time" and "remanufactured" PT Barnum and all that jazz
 
Tom-D said:
Yes it kinda does,, that 8500 for engine is going to be scrutinized much more than the 3500. But then again we can assume that the 8500 hour engine must have new parts in. or should I say "newer".
But as always you got a Pandora's box.
Click to expand...

For 17500, if it turns and you get core value, it's not overpriced.
 
I'm curious, in the ad, did he advertize the engine as 1,500SMOH or 1,500TT?

Because if it is 1,500SMOH and 5,100 TT that seems more legit me. If the engine isn't factory overhauled or new, it won't be zero-timed. If it is the case where it is 1,500SMOH/5,100 TT I wouldn't feel too weirded out especially if you had an A&P do a pre-buy inspection on the thing. Typically in ads you only see the TSOH times and not the total time on the engine unless it's really low.

The O-300 is smooth as silk but a little under-powered I think for a 172. You have those two extra jugs to deal with.
 
labbadabba said:
I'm curious, in the ad, did he advertize the engine as 1,500SMOH or 1,500TT?

Because if it is 1,500SMOH and 5,100 TT that seems more legit me. If the engine isn't factory overhauled or new, it won't be zero-timed. If it is the case where it is 1,500SMOH/5,100 TT I wouldn't feel too weirded out especially if you had an A&P do a pre-buy inspection on the thing. Typically in ads you only see the TSOH times and not the total time on the engine unless it's really low.

The O-300 is smooth as silk but a little under-powered I think for a 172. You have those two extra jugs to deal with.
Click to expand...
Advertised as 1500SMOH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top