Have you seen many YRs getting ramp checked? FWIW i get checked with HB… the nerve of these people.
mrfacts wrote:
Of course you would still fly a 30-year old airframe with a relay driven autopilot..
But IME that autopilot is actually better than the KAP140 I use… although it does not have altitude capture IIRC.
I am actually quite happy with our KAP140 although it has a tendency to stall the aircraft if you ask it to climb too aggressively.. But it’s no DFC90. Is there anything in particular you don’t like about your KAP140?
mrfacts wrote:
although it has a tendency to stall the aircraft if you ask it to climb too aggressively.
Doesn’t all autopilots without airspeed sensors do that?
Yes, of course, otherwise you could just climb into outer space 
In fact even with IAS sensors (like the KFC325 in the TBM700) they will stall the aircraft.
The only AP which potentially won’t is a very modern one with both IAS sensing and pitch control and something like a constant-IAS mode.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Doesn’t all autopilots without airspeed sensors do that?
Yes and they all suck I once stalled and dropped a wing inside a Cu cloud with the whole family + mother on board while ATC kept me very busy. That’s when I got the DFC90 autopilot and will never move back to an aircraft with a bad autopilot. Sadly, that limits choice, the only other GA AP that is comparable to the DFC90 is the GFC700 from Garmin.
mrfacts wrote:
Apologies to all Romanians here but a “special holiday huge price reduction” together with “Cluj, Romania” is likely how a lot of fraud stories begin.
Yes, the add sounds like the typical add from that region. I was also wondering about that. Then again, that is how people in that region try to advertize, not knowing that it will put people off. Seen that in real estate all over the place.
If you remember Alexis’ story with the first Cirrus he looked at… due diligence is needed even closer to home.
No VAT: Good question, but a sale from EU state to EU state by private seller to a private buyer, why should there be a VAT issue?
Clearly, all the claims about SID e.t.c. would have to be substantiated and checked, preferrably by a really good maintenance organisation in Germany or elsewhere. IF the airplane checks out maintenance wise and can be transferred without too much hassle, it should be ok.
Re Damage history: That needs to be checked in depth. The difference between the two is that the German one appears to be a pretty straightforward prop strike, whereas the damage in Norway was more than that. It was a hard landing followed by a gear up with “damage to the underside” of the airplane, which with a pressurized plane would need to be investigated.
During landing on Runway 15 at Rakkestad led wind changes to the aircraft fell onto the runway from 2-3 m height. The aircraft bounced into the air again, and after the plane had a new bounce selected commander to abort the landing. The commander gave full power, raised the flaps to 10 degrees and raised chassis. The aircraft failed to gain altitude, but sank back on the runway. It slipped into ca. 250 m on its belly before it stopped. The commander and the five passengers were not injured, but the aircraft was substantially damaged on the underside.
Did the airplane get sold as “project” after the accident maybe and then being repaired where? By whom? Possibly that is when the SID got done at the same time? All this needs to be verified.
Against that background yes, the German one could be the better airframe, also concerning resale value. The avionic is not that much different from the romanian one, especcially if the add sais “Garmin 430 new”, which seems to indicate the avionic list is not current, needs to be checked. The autopilot is certainly less modern but quite standard on those planes and also a model with flight director and pretty much all the modes you can need. GPSS could be added with an S-Tec converter if not yet there to the heading mode or by replacing the HSI and FDI with an Aspen. SID done in a German plane will be less hard to be proven and accepted by the relevant CAA than in an import. Other than that it looks like well cared for and clean and also cheaper (150k$ vs 150k€). Clearly, the engine needs to be checked with a history like that (10 years @ 150 hours), but that should be part of the pre-buy anyway. And of course there would be less cost transferring ownership.
In that light, I have to agree with those who favour the German plane. Not because it is necessarily the much better airframe, but because there are substantially less questionmarks and possible show stoppers.
I reckon the price for both can be substantially negotiated.
Clearly, the engine needs to be checked with a history like that (10 years @ 150 hours)
Of course, but what do you do if the seller has just changed the oil and the filter, OR the date when they were changed and the time on them cannot be established?
If the engine has been recently run, the “rust line” in the cylinders may be below where you can see with a borescope.
I would discount such a low time plane by the cost of an engine overhaul. If the seller doesn’t agree, then you can either walk away or throw caution to the wind and buy it anyway
but do not 206 and 210 have a tendency to run hot and a low engine TBO ?
I once looked into this when my IRI told me he knew someone thinking of selling theirs (with weather radar and good avionics but sill the CRT I think) but these 2 points put me off. As well as the fact I thought it would be out of financial reach as well, but i did not hear of an ask price either…
Peter,
one solution may be to fly it to the Pre-Buy (and to make sure that flight takes a bit of time) and then do a proper engine test (compressions, oil, filter, boroscope). If the engine runs fine, starts fine, has good compressions and oil analysis after a couple of flights, then chances that it actually IS ok are far better than if not. Also, all we know is 150 hours in 10 years, we do not how they were accumulated. If there was a lot of use in very recent times, I’d think that problems would have surfaced if they were there rather than if the plane had flown 130 hours in the first two and then sat there for years.
I would also try to shave off the price a bit in order to have reserves for an engine overhaul. Or, if you really want to know and are willing to spend money, pull a cylinder and boroscope down to the guts. However, doing that may cause you more harm than good.
So far, I have trusted people whom I know have experience with engine work in their assessment and have not yet had bad experiences. So if you really are concerned, fly it to an engine shop and let them have a look. They do know more than the average mechanic and have means to find out if an engine is potentially problematic in better ways.
At least however, an engine overhaul or new cylinders is a sort of known quantity. I am much more concerned about stuff like airframe corrosion which may in some cases NOT be repairable. Apart from that, having read over and over again that overhauled or new engines are most likely to develop problems after the run in period and the 100 hours beyond that, I am quite comfortable with engines which have run more than that.
