What questions to ask and be cautious of when buying an aircraft?

[ahramin]

Okay, I'll start by saying I have a healthy skepticism towards brokers and other similar professions. But I'm trying to keep an open mind. How could a broker save me money while purchasing a small airplane?

I'd say the only thing that matters is the condition of the airplane. While not every AME might be inspecting an airplane in as much depth as you'd like, I'd wager the average AME would inspect an airplane much better than the average broker.

The problem with brokers and similar professions is that the incentives are all wrong. It's not in the broker's short term interest to walk away from any deal no matter how bad and people respond to incentives. Anyone who hires a broker or realtor without understanding who they are working for (themselves) is asking for trouble.

I already gave you one example above of an aircraft purchased for IFR training that turned out to need $7000 of work to be legal for IFR flight. Here's the most recent example from a couple months ago:

Same case as Wannaflymore, student pilot purchasing an aircraft for the first time. In this case a Cardinal RG which had a clean pre-purchase inspection from an AME specialized in Cessna Cardinals. I became involved late in the process for help getting the aircraft home. Preparing to get the aircraft home, my check of the logbooks showed some required inspections had not been done. After pointing this out to the client who brought it up with the seller, they recommended he fly the aircraft home (illegally) and then do the inspections there in order to get the deal done before the weekend since those inspections aren't important. After walking the client through the CARs and pointing out the potential cost if those inspections turned up anything, he insisted the work be done before the sale went through. When the aircraft failed the inspection, the seller paid more for the repair than my entire fee.

Come to think of it, I can give you an even simpler example. When I asked my client if the aircraft had tie-downs, he forwarded the reply from the seller: "All the airports in BC have tie downs so you won't need to worry about it on your way home". The aircraft ended up overnighting unexpectedly outside in Lethbridge with winds over 40 knots. Saved him the deductible anyway.

Basically it doesn't matter how diligent you try to be as a first time buyer, you just don't know what you don't know. Photofly has graciously provided a random list that a first time buyer might not be aware of, imagine how much longer a complete list would be. It's certainly possible to have a good experience buying an aircraft on your own, but you're rolling the dice against house odds. My fees aren't very competitive, but more often than not I save my clients more money than they pay me.

[photofly]

Right, but frankly, if your client is tempted to listen to the vendor telling them to fly the aircraft home and do the inspections later because the weekend is coming up, your client is an idiot. You don’t need to be an airplane expert to see that.

What value do you add for an intelligent buyer?

[ahramin]

Right, but frankly, if your client is tempted to listen to the vendor telling them to fly the aircraft home and do the inspections later because the weekend is coming up, your client is an idiot. You don’t need to be an airplane expert to see that.

I think it's more that the client is new to aviation and doesn't know the rules. If an aircraft has been flying for several years in its current state, wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that it's not a problem?

People park their cars with for sale signs near a highway for more exposure, wouldn't it also make sense to park your plane outside at the airport for the same reason? It's obviously ridiculous nonsense to you and me, but someone new to aviation who believes it is not an idiot, they're just new. The unknown unknowns are myriad, and a week of research is not going to equal 20 years of experience.

What value do you add for an intelligent buyer?

If by "intelligent buyer" you mean one that is very detail oriented, has bought and sold half a dozen different types of aircraft, did most of their own maintenance on them, and has an AME that has also bought and sold half a dozen different aircraft, probably nothing.

[ahramin]

Last summer, some friends of mine bought an amateur built amphib. All three individuals have owned multiple aircraft, all are intelligent enough that they have been successful in life to the point where they can get together and buy a $100 000 plane cash. They grabbed the best AME on the field, who is also a commercial pilot and owns his own airplane, and fly over to do a thorough pre-purchase inspection.

I can't afford to buy an amphib so of course I ask if I can borrow it to go to the lake. As I'm going through the paperwork I find the propeller is past it's 5 year corrosion inspection, the altimeter / transponder checks haven't been done, the ELT hasn't been done, and the gear indication system isn't working properly. It only cost them $145 in the end, but worst case it could have been $4000. Oh and the life jackets that came with the plane were auto-inflating but they were able to use those in the boat so it worked out. They aren't idiots, they just missed a few details in their excitement to add a shiny yellow plane to the fleet.

[photofly]

I think it's more that the client is new to aviation and doesn't know the rules. If an aircraft has been flying for several years in its current state, wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that it's not a problem?

No, it wouldn't be a reasonable assumption. There's new to aviation and eyes-open, and there's new to aviation and eyes-wide-shut.

With respect - I think you're underselling yourself. Buying an airplane can involve a lot of leg work. What you can offer to the intelligent or experienced purchaser is saving them a lot of time, if you're prepared to do that work for them.

all are intelligent enough that they have been successful in life to the point where they can get together and buy a $100 000 plane cash.

Well, that's not evidence of intelligence. A marmoset could probably do that. Some of the smartest people I know are poor as church mice. It's the dumb ones who make all the money.

[ahramin]

I think it's more that the client is new to aviation and doesn't know the rules. If an aircraft has been flying for several years in its current state, wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that it's not a problem?

No, it wouldn't be a reasonable assumption. There's new to aviation and eyes-open, and there's new to aviation and eyes-wide-shut.

I think you're forgetting how little we knew about aviation before we knew anything about aviation. I remember a young man who came on this site and posted some aerial pictures of downtown Toronto. When someone asked him what camera equipment he was using, he said that was secret. So of course someone copied the metadata from the pictures he posted showing he was using a Canon Rebel. That young man was not an idiot, he just had no idea how much he didn't know about photography.

With respect - I think you're underselling yourself. Buying an airplane can involve a lot of leg work. What you can offer to the intelligent or experienced purchaser is saving them a lot of time, if you're prepared to do that work for them.

When we're talking about aircraft over a million dollars, yes. They want the best plane for the money, period. Once you get under a million though, most buyers are so excited about the entire process that they prefer to do the leg work themselves. The value comes not from the saved workload but from saved mistakes.

Well, that's not evidence of intelligence. A marmoset could probably do that. Some of the smartest people I know are poor as church mice. It's the dumb ones who make all the money.

Good point, bad example on my part. There three aren't idiots but avarice is certainly not a sign of intelligence. Most of the rich people I know got there by wanting to be rich - but not all of them. In any case I know a heck of a lot more dumb poor people than smart poor people. Weak correlation at best.

[Big Pistons Forever]

One of the things that new to owning an airplane pilots often don't understand is how expensive certified airplane parts are.

For example a random sample for a O-300 powered C 172

Alternator $994
Starter $1345
Starter Adapter $ 1550
Battery $ 377
Fuel selector valve $ 2023
tire with tube $300
spark plug ( there are 12 plugs on this engine ) $ 40
altimeter (certified) $ 1980
Engine Cylinder (the engine has 6 cylinders) $ 1960

Note this is just the price of the parts and does not include the labor to install them.

So the issue is not just getting the airplane up to speed but also maintaining it as you own it. I have owned my Grumman AA1B for 20 years. Annual maintenance including annual inspections (NOT including labour as I get free labour) has ranged from a low of $360 to $8900 and has averaged about $2000 a year. if I had to pay for the labour It would be about double that. But you also have to budget insurance and tiedown it better still a hangar.

Realistically you are going to spend a MINIMUM of 6 to 8 K a year before you turn the propeller.

Some general thoughts

More and more light aircraft are assessed as beyond economic repair due to corrosion. The pre-purchase needs to include a complete look inside all of the airframe especially the cabin overhead area and the tailcone and tail feathers

The 2 most expensive parts of an airplane are engines and radios. The engine in the C172 H is a 6 cylinder Continental O 300. An overhaul for this engine will be around 30K. A boroscope inspection is absolutely mandatory as internal corrosion could result in a very expensive bill. Ideally one cylinder should be removed to get a good look at the camshaft.

All of the radios in the OP's airplane are unsupported. The MX 1700 is a new face on the king KX 170. The newest KX170 is 40 years old and King has not provided parts for this radio in over 20 years. The same for the KR86 ADF. The Narco AT50A is even more problematical as Narco stopped producing radios many years ago. The GNC 250 is also not supported by Garmin. You are OK as long as everything stays working but realistically when any of these radios fail you are in a repair by replacement situation and must budget accordingly. I would bet money that the AT50A won't pass an inspection.

[ahramin]

All great advice BPF.

A boroscope inspection is absolutely mandatory as internal corrosion could result in a very expensive bill. Ideally one cylinder should be removed to get a good look at the camshaft.

I would just remark that no seller in their right mind would allow a cylinder removal as part of a pre-buy. If the engine has sat more than a year without flying you might be able to argue that it's required by CARs but otherwise it's not likely to happen.

Wannaflymore another question to ask is to see the oil analysis reports. Many well maintained aircraft will do one every oil change.

[photofly]

All great advice BPF.

A boroscope inspection is absolutely mandatory as internal corrosion could result in a very expensive bill. Ideally one cylinder should be removed to get a good look at the camshaft.

I would just remark that no seller in their right mind would allow a cylinder removal as part of a pre-buy. If the engine has sat more than a year without flying you might be able to argue that it's required by CARs but otherwise it's not likely to happen.

You might be surprised to see what can be seen with a borescope inserted down the oil filler tube.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Ahramin

If the boroscope raises concerns then for me a cylinder removal becomes a condition of the sale. If the owner won’t go for it then I walk away. I know of one case where that exact issue came up. The guy really wanted the airplane and paid for the removal. It turned out that the engine needed some cylinder work but the engine was basically OK and so he went ahead and bought the airplane.

[shaynemarshallporath]

I would just remark that no seller in their right mind would allow a cylinder removal as part of a pre-buy.

I have pulled cyls on a Pre-purchase inspection I have ALSO pulled cyls and recommended it on MY OWN A/C that i was selling !

I suppose you are the type of person who would not allow a buyer to look at the oil screen as well or do an oil change 1 hr before selling the plane ?

[shaynemarshallporath]

Ideally one cylinder should be removed to get a good look at the camshaft.

With 1 cyl off you can look at 50% of the cam lobes with 2 cyls off ( on a 4 cyl engine ) you can look at 100% of the cam lobes !

[shaynemarshallporath]

I normally recommend that the buyer only have half the cylinders do a leak-down test !!!

[photofly]

Pulling an old cylinder is very risky, for a vendor.

If the owner won’t go for it then I walk away.

That's ok, too, from the vendor's perspective. There are plenty of buyers at the moment. But you might be passing up a good thing for your clients. Nobody's judgement is perfect: have you ever factored in the lost opportunity cost to your clients if you unreasonably walk away from a good airplane, for no good reason? You can save your clients thousands if you reject every single airplane, but there aren't that many out there, and if a client has to wait a few months for another to turn up, that's a cost too.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Pulling an old cylinder is very risky, for a vendor.

If the owner won’t go for it then I walk away.

That's ok, too, from the vendor's perspective. There are plenty of buyers at the moment. But you might be passing up a good thing for your clients. Nobody's judgement is perfect: have you ever factored in the lost opportunity cost to your clients if you unreasonably walk away from a good airplane, for no good reason? You can save your clients thousands if you reject every single airplane, but there aren't that many out there, and if a client has to wait a few months for another to turn up, that's a cost too.

I guess ultimately it is about your risk tolerance. I bought my Grumman AA1B 20 years ago without even a boroscope because the engine (1100 hrs since new) had been completely disassembled and a new cam shaft installed by a reputable shop less than 2 years earlier and it had flown regularly since. It was a good deal and other buyers were interested so I assessed the risk that anything bad had happened to it since it was reassembled by the engine builder was acceptably low and pulled the trigger. As it turned out I ended up putting 4 new cylinders on it 4 years later. I was still OK with that because it was going to be my runabout airplane for the foreseeable future. The engine now has 2550 hours on it and is doing just fine.

If you are OK rolling the dice on a 30K overhaul because of other factors on why this is the right airplane for you then that is a personal decision and I will not say it is wrong, just that you have to go in with your eyes open. A C172H with a dead engine is almost worthless and you will never get most of your money back if you have to overhaul the engine. That may be OK because this is your last airplane but again it should be a conscious decision.

Personally I would not touch this airplane without a clean full boroscope inspection and depending on what that revealed, a cylinder removal.

[TalkingPie]

I'm skeptical of brokers, too, but we're not talking about a real estate agent who took a 3 month course and doesn't do much more than turn on the lights in the bathrooms, tells you when the counters were replaced, and calls the notary for you.

How do you know? Unlike for real estate, there's not even a three month course for being an aircraft broker. Even you could call yourself one tomorrow.

It goes without saying (even though I did say it) that you have to trust the resource that you're using. In my case I have a neighbour who owns the local flight school, has a few thousand hours flight experience, has helped others buy and transport small aircraft across the country, in addition to owning two himself, and who's employed at the same company I worked at. I'd trust that the money I'd pay him would be well worth the value he'd bring to the transaction. I imagine that word of mouth through flying clubs, schools, and pilot social circles could turn up other such individuals. From the sounds of it, there are people in this very thread who'd fill this role quite well.

[ahramin]

Ahramin

If the boroscope raises concerns then for me a cylinder removal becomes a condition of the sale. If the owner won’t go for it then I walk away. I know of one case where that exact issue came up. The guy really wanted the airplane and paid for the removal. It turned out that the engine needed some cylinder work but the engine was basically OK and so he went ahead and bought the airplane.

Ok. I probably overstated the point. But lets say he didn't buy the airplane and 50 hours later the cylinder that was removed and reinstalled comes apart in flight. Now the seller has at best an expensive headache on their hands because they allowed a pre-buy to turn into an invasive procedure that increases the risk of an engine failure. I'm not saying pulling a cylinder never happens, just saying that I would not recommend to any seller to allow it unless there was a non-refundable deposit in place, the rest of the money in escrow, and a clear understanding of what happens depending on what is found.

Allowing a cylinder to be pulled off your aircraft as part of a normal pre purchase inspection is a bad idea.

Also keep in mind that I'm not talking about sales of abandoned or junk aircraft. In loss of licence situations I've had sellers get someone to fly the aircraft every two weeks until sold. I've got a rebuilt F1 Rocket coming up for sale that we're planning on getting absolute top dollar for. We're going to put at least 25 hours on it before it's even offered for sale and will have engine monitoring data, tribology reports, and oil filter inspections to show. Any pre-buy will be very limited.

If we're talking about some aircraft that has been left outside and is being sold for a fraction of what it would be worth as a flying aircraft then I could see a seller having no choice. Actually I did sell a complete basket case a few years ago but we priced it as a basket case and sold it without any pre-buy. We didn't even post contact information on the sale ad, just the aircraft location. Two people took the trouble to go look at the plane, and the second one bought it. My fee on that one was low, but it was the easiest sale ever. Trying to sell junk aircraft is more trouble than it's worth.

[ahramin]

Well, the pictures show it tied down in a hangar at least...

That’s right. My first instinct to sell my well-kept always-hangared airplane, is to, uh, move it out into the snow, for the, uh, exposure. :-O

How about a little more info... the aircraft is said to have been moved from one small airport to a more busy one for better exposure with a "For Sale" sign on it. You're right - and I thought about it anyway - the exposure thing could just be total B.S. But if we take it that way, everything about this aircraft could be total BS and I should just forget about it and buy a brand new one; which I can't afford, of course. So for now, I'll just assume the guy who gave me the information (and his position would tend to make me think it is not in his best interest to bullshit me) is honest and I'll see on-site anyway. For now, what I have seen in the photos and videos does not tell me this A/C was parked and left in crappy weather conditions. And yes, those pictures could be photoshopped, eh?

Has the aircraft been flying since it was exposed? What is the reason for the sale?

[CpnCrunch]

Here is why cylinder removal for any reason is a risky procedure:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... y-business

If a plane required cylinder removal to adequately assess its condition, there is no way I'd buy the plane. As long as it's flown regularly, compressions are reasonable, and oil filter doesn't have any metal, you should be fine.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Here is why cylinder removal for any reason is a risky procedure:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... y-business

If a plane required cylinder removal to adequately assess its condition, there is no way I'd buy the plane. As long as it's flown regularly, compressions are reasonable, and oil filter doesn't have any metal, you should be fine.

In the case of the OP’s aircraft you would be 1 for 3. The airplane has not been flown regularly and the O 300 generally do not have oil filters, just an oil screen which generally is only good enough to catch metal that is large enough to have a readable part number. I would also suggest that there is a poor correlation between engine health and cylinder compression. As photo alluded to someone who knows what they are doing can see a lot with a boroscope, however there are somethings you can only see with disassembly.

I personally think the dangers of removal and reinstalling a cylinder are over stated and I have never had an issue with an airplane that had a cylinder(s) replaced. One place where I flew
Navajos the boss insisted on leaning to book fuel flows. We used to joke that the AME’s should just use Velcro to hold them on because we had so many cracked cylinders that had to be replaced.

[photofly]

I personally think the dangers of removal and reinstalling a cylinder are over stated and I have never had an issue with an airplane that had a cylinder(s) replaced.

I don't think it's a danger, but I took the trouble to have the exhaust removed on an engine because of a leaking gasket, and lo and behold a stud failed- the exhaust not having been removed in 1800 hours. My AME preferred to have it properly fixed, so off comes the cylinder and away it goes to the engine shop who refused to tag it because the bore was out of limits. So I had to buy a replacement cylinder. Maintenance induced maintenance.

If I had gone through all that to please a potential purchase I should be quite annoyed.

For reasons similar to those expressed in that AOPA article, there's no way I'd permit two cylinders to be removed at the same time.

[shaynemarshallporath]

I don't think it's a danger, but I took the trouble to have the exhaust removed on an engine because of a leaking gasket, and lo and behold a stud failed- the exhaust not having been removed in 1800 hours. My AME preferred to have it properly fixed, so off comes the cylinder and away it goes to the engine shop who refused to tag it because the bore was out of limits. So I had to buy a replacement cylinder. Maintenance induced maintenance.

The last 2 engines i looked at i pulled 2 cyls on a 700 hr SMOH engine ( 4 cyl) and another one 1000 old cyls (6 cyl) and found 50% of the valves eroded and line cut to the point of being DANGEROUS ! Valves drop in engines because they were fine until they failed catastrophically ! Mike Busch is okay, but sometimes goes too far in his ideas to make a name for himself!

BTW That last engine had 2 studs broken because of EXACTLY what Busch says about the near impossibility of getting bolt stretch right on cyl inst.

Even pulling an exhaust when they leak ( they will not last the life of the engine without leaking) does give opportunity to catch a valve ready to let go! Doing a boro with an instrument that works every 200 hrs is a good idea! Cam lobes and lifters go relatively slowly and generally show up in SOAP or the spin-on. Even the notorious H2AD cam eating engines deteriorated without catastrophe!

On the other hand, when conditions indicate, pulling 2 jugs is a very WISE insurance policy when purchasing an A/C at retail value !

[photofly]

I take photographs of all my exhaust valves every annual with a great borescope I bought. All good with them, so far.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I personally think the dangers of removal and reinstalling a cylinder are over stated and I have never had an issue with an airplane that had a cylinder(s) replaced.

I don't think it's a danger, but I took the trouble to have the exhaust removed on an engine because of a leaking gasket, and lo and behold a stud failed- the exhaust not having been removed in 1800 hours. My AME preferred to have it properly fixed, so off comes the cylinder and away it goes to the engine shop who refused to tag it because the bore was out of limits. So I had to buy a replacement cylinder. Maintenance induced maintenance.

If I had gone through all that to please a potential purchase I should be quite annoyed.

If I had gone through all that to please a potential purchase I should be quite annoyed.

On the other hand If I was the purchaser I would be quite happy an unserviceable cylinder was replaced before I bought the airplane.

As an aside I can't say I agree with your assessment that this was "maintenance induced maintenance". I would suggest it is an example of a good AME doing his/her job to ensure it was as you put it "properly fixed". I can say from significant personal experience that sometimes, actually make that most of the time; "properly fixing" an airplane involves spending a lot of money

[photofly]

The AME did a good job, and made the right decisions. But there’s no requirement to measure cylinders on a working engine, and no suggestion that the engine wasn’t airworthy. It’s an old engine, and if you go poking around you may have to pay to replace things. And sometimes you end up having to replace things other than the ones you wanted to poke around in, things which otherwise wouldn’t have needed replacing. Beware.

On the other hand If I was the purchaser I would be quite happy an unserviceable cylinder was replaced before I bought the airplane

It wasn’t, and isn’t for sale, and I never play the game of “I’ll buy it if you do/fix thing/tasks X,Y and Z”. You want it, make me an offer, buy it, and you fix it. If you don’t want it, that’s cool too. As a buyer I’m much happier fixing defects myself, that way I know they’re done right.