Selling a plane after overhaul?

G

Gpilot91

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Sep 15, 2014
Messages
3
Location
CT
Display Name
Display name:
Mooney Man
I currently have a Mooney Bravo that has been an awesome machine when not down for maintenance and has fulfilled my mission of traveling throughout the northeast for work with the personal restriction of not flying night IMC in a single. Unfortunately, prior owners didn’t give it the care necessary and despite what I thought was a thorough pre buy at the time I’ve been fixing their sins for the past few years. Ultimately this has led to an overhaul at a very well known/respected shop (which also found cracks on the crank from a prior prop strike!). Of course now that I have everything sorted out I’d love to have a parachute or second engine when flying over “hostile” terrain at night or IMC as that would greatly reduce the number of “no go” for “three strikes”.

I know I’m unfortunately going to take a bath on the cost of overhaul, but with infant mortality being real is it worth putting some more hours on the engine both to get some more value out of the spend and to make prospective buyers more comfortable? How many hours is comforting for a buyer, 100? 200? Am I insane for wanting that second engine or chute? Perhaps the realization that my crankshaft could have blown apart on me at any point is skewing my perception of safety?

Appreciate everyone’s thoughts!
 
Read a bit on twin accidents caused by an engine failure. You'll find quite a few of them, and the takeaway is that unless flown really well by a pilot that works hard to maintain proficiency, a twin won't really give you the safety margin you want.
Also, now you'll be potentially fixing someone elses's neglected plane, and you have twice as many things that can ground the plane on the engine side.
I'd say a plane with a chute (and the right mindset to be willing to pull it) is probably a better choice.

On the hours front, I'd say 200 would be the minimum I'd feel comfortable with. By that point everything would be broken in and infant mortality would be less of an issue. Plus, it would feel less like a quick and dirty overhaul was performed just to sell the plane.
 
Gpilot91 said:
Appreciate everyone’s thoughts!
Click to expand...
From a mx perspective, its how the break-in was accomplished and over what time period. For how much time since the OH is acceptable tends to be subjective to the buyer in my experience. Unfortunately, have seen a few OH break-ins "rushed" prior to a known sale which ultimately led to further issues later on. Perhaps document the break-in process used and when you met the required goals and take it from there?
 
Time is right high price for SEL and give away price for a twin, your timing is great. Lots of 310 and 55 or 58 for sale full IFR great avionics cheaper than most single engine with same avionics and been so for a long time lots of motivated sellers. Yes they cost more to own, flying at night low IFR or over water that second engine is priceless. Also a lot more room than the Mooney, faster and 6 seat.
 
My rule of thumb on a new overhaul is that the first 300 hours flown do not impact sale price in the slightest. Infant mortality concerns seem to equate to the amortized 300 hours of use, more or less. :)
 
Factory Overhaul sell now. BFE Overhaul then run some time and get some of your money back. Well known shop you can go both ways.

No name field overhaul with rebuilt cylinders I’d price it as a IRAN.

Buying an another plane your going to be right back fixing things. At least your plane has some maintenance history now.

Well known overhaul shop you’ll probably lose some money on the sale maybe not.
If I was buying I’d like a couple hundred hours on rebuilt engine.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies! Yes the hard part about selling now is going back to the beginning as far as maintenance and familiarity with the airframe is concerned. In hindsight I do wish I had “bought the last airplane first” but at the time I was unsure if my business use would prove realistic, didn’t have a ton of experience hours wise, and hadn’t owned a plane before (only rented) so didn’t want to jump into the deep end. I’m sure the first two years with the next plane will also be a significant investment since I apparently run on the perfectionist side of airplane maintenance, but hopefully the investment will at least be into a plane I’ll keep for a long time.

In the meantime I’ll plan to document the break in as suggested since I want to keep track of things for myself anyways. And as I’m looking for the next plane I can plan on taking my time while flying the new engine a few hundred hours.
 
I would pick a single with a BRS over a twin. I think it's much safer in most cases. One notable exception would be 1. owning a DA-62 (which can climb to 13,000 ft on a single engine) AND 2. stay very proficient at all times.

For your current plane, I would put it on the market right away, then keep flying it until it sells. No need to guess the market.
 
Lots of GA first time buyers are uneducated, they compare to their Lexus

If it’s under 500 TSMOH it’s “fresh”

As for the failure rate on a fresh OH, most are not educated to that so meh

For me I laugh, most of the new buyer GAs demise will be to their lack of skills and experience, but they’ll throw their checkbook at the illusion of safety, BRS, six figure avionics and the like, vs a 100LL and a GOOD CFI
 
The age of an engine is far more important than hours. I would take it to it's first oil change then put her on the market. Most would argue that a twin is far more dangerous than a single in IMC unless you are intimately familiar and stay up on training and practice. A parachute will help in some situations but they have their limit on deployment criteria. Most IMC or night accidents occur during departure or arrival where a chute is likely not effective given proximity to the ground. You could do some research on accidents in IMC and or night conditions and determine for your self whether a chute or an extra engine would have saved the day.
 
A friend of mine who is a broker once told me, fresh OH, fly it at least 500 hrs to get your money’s out of the OH. Over 1500 hrs, and planning to sell, discount and sell without OH’ing.
 
Gpilot91 said:
I know I’m unfortunately going to take a bath on the cost of overhaul, but with infant mortality being real is it worth putting some more hours on the engine both to get some more value out of the spend and to make prospective buyers more comfortable? How many hours is comforting for a buyer, 100? 200?
Click to expand...

Personally I'm always skeptical of the aircraft for sale with 0 or 50 SMOH. I always wonder why someone would go to the time and expense just to sell the aircraft off? That said, maybe the sellers have reasons like yours, everyone can have a change of perspective. In any case, for me, I would much prefer an aircraft with ~ 200 hrs SMOH, but if I was in the market I certainly wouldn't overlook fresh overhaul listings and inquire more. If the seller has a reasonable story and the overhaul was performed by a quality shop I would definitely have a lot more confidence in a potential purchase.

Good Luck with it!
 
Utilization is the key. 300 hours in 30 years - very unlikely to make TBO. 10 to 40 hours per month - very likely to make TBO. And if Part 91 usage, soldier on for quite some time afterwards. At 75 hours per year average utilization, a mid-time engine owes you nothing.
 
Gpilot91 said:
I currently have a Mooney Bravo that has been an awesome machine when not down for maintenance and has fulfilled my mission of traveling throughout the northeast for work with the personal restriction of not flying night IMC in a single. Unfortunately, prior owners didn’t give it the care necessary and despite what I thought was a thorough pre buy at the time I’ve been fixing their sins for the past few years. Ultimately this has led to an overhaul at a very well known/respected shop (which also found cracks on the crank from a prior prop strike!). Of course now that I have everything sorted out I’d love to have a parachute or second engine when flying over “hostile” terrain at night or IMC as that would greatly reduce the number of “no go” for “three strikes”.

I know I’m unfortunately going to take a bath on the cost of overhaul, but with infant mortality being real is it worth putting some more hours on the engine both to get some more value out of the spend and to make prospective buyers more comfortable? How many hours is comforting for a buyer, 100? 200? Am I insane for wanting that second engine or chute? Perhaps the realization that my crankshaft could have blown apart on me at any point is skewing my perception of safety?

Appreciate everyone’s thoughts!
Click to expand...
Here's a few:

1) I did an extensive analysis of accidents in the NTSB database a few years ago. If you eliminate recreational use, the accident rates for single and twin piston aircraft are almost identical, and the accident rate for single and twin turboprop aircraft are almost identical. Essentially, for every crash of a single due to an engine failure, there's a crash of a twin due to loss of control. Also, the twin is twice as likely to have an engine failure. So, you MUST have the discipline to fully brief every takeoff and follow the brief in the event of a failure, and to train often and hard, or your twin will be less safe than a single. I would plan on at least a yearly trip to SimCom or the like if they have a simulator for your type of aircraft, or if not, find a well respected instructor on your aircraft type (this is unlikely to be local, FWIW) and travel to them every six months. Treat this as a requirement.

2) Consider the age of aircraft. If you have a Bravo, your plane is newer than almost any twin. Even if you bought the first Bravo off the line in 1989, the only light piston twins that have been manufactured at all since then are the Seminole, Seneca, 58 Baron, and the Diamond twins (DA42 and DA62). And the non-Diamond ones have been produced in VERY small numbers. As such, unless you go with a Diamond, or you find the rare newer Piper/Beech twin, you'll not only be maintaining a more complex aircraft, you'll also be maintaining an older aircraft. It will be difficult and expensive.
 
Put an ad up now for top of market since you can afford to sit tight. Say so in the ad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top