Total airframe time, engine overhaul

[Seminole Pilot]

I had previously posted and appreciate all the responses on possibilities for 6 seaters for myself and my family. As I'm digging deeper into this I'm now leaning a little more to a Bonanza A36 compared to Saratoga as I will be doing 5-7 trips a year that would be 900nm each way. Question is I've run across some nice A36's but with what I would consider higher total time. Some have been around 5-6,000 and one even up to 9,000 and then you see others in the low 2-3 range. These are mostly on model years in the late 70's to early & mid 80's. Any thought on total time? Also it seems MOH is around 2,000, do most make it to that? Just trying to see what I need to factor in budget on timing for a overhaul.

Lastly, for any current A36 owners, is there a way on the pre-1984 models to remove the bar that connects both yokes (dual controls)? From what I'm seeing it really blocks your vision with controls during flight. I guess otherwise if not, I'll be leaning more towards a 84 or newer model.

Thanks!

 

[weilke]

I own shares in two, a '71 and a '81. I happen to know the times for the '81 as I just wrote an ad to sell the share, for the other one I would have to open the logs. Within reason, airframe time has little relevance. Engine time, upgrade status of the avionics and age of P&I are so much more important. Very few things on the airframe wear based on flight hours. Door hinges, locks, that kind of thing show their age in higher time airframes, but those are items that can be repaired or overhauled if they wear out. There are some A36 that have seen use as airline trainers (Lufthansa, Sabena, Japan Airlines etc.) . Those often have 10,000+ hours. Still, they don't have the wings fall off.

Now, in part 23 aircraft, there are frequently hour limitations on the airframe, but that doesn't apply to the A36.

 

[weilke]

As for the second set of questions:

- there is no way to convert from the throwover yoke to the two separate yokes. That's just how they are made. The throw-over is a feature, not a bug. You can fold down the rudder pedals and reduce the chances of your passenger interfering with the controls. The setup with the T-bar and dual yokes is for training. You can rent the dual yokes until you have finished training and then return to the throw-over. It's not really in the way of anything, it just seems that way on cockpit photos as few of them are taken from the pilots point of view.
- TBO for a new Conti 520 or 550 is 2000hrs. If you pay attention to how you run the engine and have an engine monitor, it can be reached.

 

[Seminole Pilot]

Thanks. I appreciate the insight. I know airframe is not much of a factor but hadn't seen many up in the 7-9,000 range, just seemed like a lot! Didn't know if I should automatically throw it out of the equation. I guess I'll have to see a pre 1984 A36 in person regarding the Tbar throwover yoke setup. I just saw how one person posted the bar can get in the way (sight wise) while underway seeing the landing gear controls, throttle, mixture, prop, etc.

 

[weilke]

All else being equal, I would opt for the lower time (and lower cycle) airframe over a higher time one. But I wouldn't set an artificial number to disregard a plane that fits my criterial otherwise.

Now those ex trainers have also seen lots of cycles and primary training (and many don't have an autopilot ), so you would need a competent mechanic to look at them for any signs of fatigue.

There is one area on the Bonanzas where time comes into play and those are the wing bolt fittings. There is an area that can crack and require a doubler to be riveted on. The AD is a great source of anxiety whenever the FAA looks at it every couple of years.

You should be able to identify all those controls by feel. 'feels like a wheel', 'feels like a flap', knurled knob vs. smooth etc.

 

[Salty]

If it was never a rental or trainer, I’d go for the higher airframe time. In general.

 

[Kansas Flyer]

If it was never a rental or trainer, I’d go for the higher airframe time. In general.

Low time on an older plane can mean it spent a lot of time sitting around being neglected.

Our 65' Cherokee only flew about 30 hours in the 10 years before we owned it, everything worked but not always all that well. We have put 100+ hours a year on her since then and things simply started working better the more use they got.

 

[Seminole Pilot]

Low time on an older plane can mean it spent a lot of time sitting around being neglected.

Our 65' Cherokee only flew about 30 hours in the 10 years before we owned it, everything worked but not always all that well. We have put 100+ hours a year on her since then and things simply started working better the more use they got.

Thanks, that makes complete sense. I’ve come from previous owning larger boats & coaches and that applies to them as well. I’ll keep that in mind while on the search!

 

[weilke]

Thanks, that makes complete sense. I’ve come from previous owning larger boats & coaches and that applies to them as well. I’ll keep that in mind while on the search!

Except that it doesn't make sense and was just stated to be contrarian. You don't want a plane that has been sitting the years immediately prior to you buying it, that is certainly true. But there is no benefit whatsoever to you if a plane racked up 8000hrs back in the 80s flying bags with stock coupons around.

 

[Salty]

Except that it doesn't make sense and was just stated to be contrarian. You don't want a plane that has been sitting the years immediately prior to you buying it, that is certainly true. But there is no benefit whatsoever to you if a plane racked up 8000hrs back in the 80s flying bags with stock coupons around.

I’d take that over a plane that sat. Again, generally speaking. It’s not as simple as comparing numbers is all I’m saying.

 

[Kansas Flyer]

Except that it doesn't make sense and was just stated to be contrarian. You don't want a plane that has been sitting the years immediately prior to you buying it, that is certainly true. But there is no benefit whatsoever to you if a plane racked up 8000hrs back in the 80s flying bags with stock coupons around.

The point was that lower hours is not always better. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

 

[weilke]

The point was that lower hours is not always better. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

We are in agreement.

Thats why I said: 'all else being equal'. Two 1979 A36 with 550 conversion with 600hrs, a GNS530 and 8/10 P&I. Both from private sellers with a consistent 150h/year recent history. If one has 3500 airframe hours and the other 11,000 , I want to see the buyer who opts for the more seasoned plane.