Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Considering aircraft purchase - finally ;-)

The retractable element to the PA28R and PA32R is just another maintenance curve to stay ahead of – once you’re there, it’s just not that costly, unless you regularly abuse it in your landings. I have owned fixed and retractable gear versions of the pa28 and pa32 and the annuals cost a similar amount. However, repeated crabbed or bounced landings will not agree with the gear long-term.

However, if you buy a retractable that has been neglected, and fallen behind on the maintenance curve with loads of ‘deferred’ maintenance, put on your titanium jock-strap and prepare for a wallet-ectomy. an easy way to get an initial picture is to firmly apply the parking brake and have a helper rock the aircraft laterally by the respective wing-tip, whilst you lie on your back underneath the gear assembly. If the whole aircraft creaks, bangs, groans and displays movement in all the rose-joints and trunions, you may well be in for a large (£15-25k) bill at the next annual – presupposing that the gear doesn’t hang half-way up or down during a subsequent flight.

The photo’s shown in Peter’s last post are sadly not unheard of when it comes to EASA aircraft, where the principal focus of the regulator is on the process and paperwork, rather than the actual work. Most maintenance outfits are straight up and down guys and wouldn’t let an aircraft get into this sort of state. But one or two clearly have.

I’m going to be careful to make sure that the aircraft I am talking about cannot be identified, but about 4-5 years ago I hopped on a Ryanair flight to somewhere on Europe, to see a promising sound aircraft which, although based overseas, was still on the Golf register. All the log-books and maintenance records checked out, just peachy. The only problem was that the aircraft had clearly not actually been maintained – merely all the paperwork attended to. I passed on the aircraft and someone else bought her and, shortly thereafter, crashed her. The salvage went to another country and is being offered for sale without any mention of the history.

Be very careful and trust your first impressions – most owners of aircraft love them to bits and talk very freely about the cash they’ve lavished on their aircraft – it’s almost a badge of honour. If this element of the conversation is under par, you’re being told something!!

However, “glass” does nothing for your mission capability.

Also, contrary to what most think, it does nothing for your despatch rate (or downtime, if you like) because individual avionics (of reasonable quality so e.g. not Narco ) have proved to be just as [un]reliable as “glass”.

A lot of modern “glass” cannot be touched without dealer involvement. AFAIK all the Garmin “glass”, G500 onwards, TXi etc, needs dealer access codes to configure. GNS and GTN are ok. Avidyne and Aspen boxes don’t need dealer involvement (or the methods are in the public domain). I used to know a US installer who said he could get me anything from Garmin, and the access codes, but then he packed up his business… And, often, even if there are no special codes involved, the functionality is just too complex to fix “in the field”. Look at the many threads we have had here, where someone is clearly having massive trouble with finding a dealer to fix it, or doesn’t want to be ripped off by a certain well known company, and is looking for manuals. There is a lot of activity around the G1000 market with unauthorised retrofitting of some modules.

Accordingly, much depends on your situation. If you are based at an airport with a Garmin dealer there, and you never fly down to Croatia or Greece, that’s fine And that’s true for an awful lot of people.

Individual instruments are much easier to fix if something goes. You have so many more options.

I would be extra careful with an Arrow. I think of all the retractables, it is fair to say they are often found in the poorest maintenance state, statistically speaking. Not surprising since most people spend up to the limit of what they can afford, and the PA28R is the cheapest retractable. This is not all that unusual… Similarly I would not recommend a 1983 TB20

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Maintenance condition of the aircraft you buy is a more important consideration than the model. Sure, you need to know your mission and minimal useful load, but cruising speed and installed avionics are less important.

The cruising speed of a rocket on the ground for maintenance is zero. Avionics are developing so quickly that you might be tempted to replace everything with glass. So what is critical are clean airframe and engine condition. I would focus only on planes that are regular flown with a maintenance history that can be followed in the log books.

All a bit of a fantasy of course….

Tököl LHTL

Airborne_Again wrote:

This is not new
I’m not saying it’s new, but I had not understood it before, and felt it was important to put it together all in one post. Easier to find for anyone searching the forum.
ESMK, Sweden

Arne wrote:

So an airframe that was never certified for UL91 but whose engine is approved by its OEM can become approved to use UL91.
The OT was about Mogas, which is explictely excluded by CS-Stan, this is progress nonetheless.

This is not new — it has been the case at least since the first issue of CS-STAN in 2015.

I know that in the case of Hjelmco 91/96UL, EASA gave a blanket approval as early as 2010 in its Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2010-31.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

boscomantico wrote:

Because running on mogas also requires an approval of the specific airframe.
Revisiting this topic.
CS-Stan Issue 3 has the following chapter:
Standard Change CS-SC202b
USE OF AVIATION GASOLINE (AVGAS) UL 91
1. Purpose
Unleaded Avgas UL 91 (according to ASTM D7547 or Def Stan 91-90) may be used if approved for the particular engine types and the installation at aircraft level is already approved for operation with conventional Avgas or Motor Gasoline (Mogas).
Avgas UL 91 may also be used in all engines and aircraft types approved for use with Mogas RON 95 (MON 85) in accordance with Standard EN 228.
Even if approved for the engine, the operation with Avgas UL 91 is a modification at aircraft level, and placards and manuals have to be amended which could be done using this SC.
2. Applicability/Eligibility
Aeroplanes other than complex motor-powered aircraft, and powered sailplanes with spark-ignited piston engines using Avgas or Mogas.
3. Acceptable methods, techniques, and practices
To enable the use of unleaded Avgas UL 91 with this SC, the following conditions are to be met:
__— the engine installed on the aircraft is approved for use of unleaded Avgas UL 91 and the aircraft is already approved for operation with conventional Avgas (according to ASTM D910 [aka 100LL], Def Stan 91-90, Mil-G-5572, GOST1012-72 or equivalent) or Mogas; or__
— …
— …
— the installed engine has not been modified and meets the specifications of the original engine Type Certificate; and
— placards are installed/amended as needed to allow the use of the approved fuels

So an airframe that was never certified for UL91 but whose engine is approved by its OEM can become approved to use UL91.
The OT was about Mogas, which is explictely excluded by CS-Stan, this is progress nonetheless.

Last Edited by Arne at 20 Apr 15:09
ESMK, Sweden

The austrian one?

always learning
LO__, Austria

Patrick wrote:

we are pretty much zoomed in on Cherokee types, but looking at both fixed-gear models as well as Arrows.

I might know of a very nice EASA reg Arrow III which might come to the market. Very well equipped and updated with recent avionic, new windows and other nice features. If you are interested, drop me a PM.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 25 Nov 22:59
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Hello all,

Bumping this back up again to first apologize for the late response.

The main reason was, to be honest, that there was so much info to digest in this thread and I promised my girlfriend to filter out (large Excel file!) the relevant info from the chatter. It’s always fascinating to watch threads drift and especially explain to someone not so used to online forums that “now they’re debating whether high-wing is better for sun protection or low-wing is better for easy access to fuel”.

Thanks to everyone who contributed!

Search is still on-going and will update with any substantial news, as they arise. No rush at all, though.

Silvaire wrote:

The OP asking the question learned to fly at my US base. In his shoes I certainly would have obtained an FAA pilot certificate, for obvious reasons. I was anyway sorry not to have met him while he was here!

@Silvaire – I obtained my FAA certificate some time later during a subsequent stay in the US, as I was short on time in the end when I was there for the initial PPL. But I do not hold a stand-alone FAA certificate, it’s a Part 61.75 foreign-based one.

I would not totally shy away from N-reg, if the aircraft I’d be looking at is good, but I would also not insist on it at all.

AndersB wrote:

What’s YOUR take so far Patrick?

Regarding the type discussion (which was not the main focus of the original question, but it’s the most discussed theme on this thread ;-) ), we are pretty much zoomed in on Cherokee types, but looking at both fixed-gear models as well as Arrows.

Last Edited by Patrick at 22 Nov 22:00
Hungriger Wolf (EDHF), Germany

Antonio wrote:

whereas the gear in a 177 has only a grand total of 2 actuators and 4 switches.

There are some models of 177 in which certain parts simply are NLA. The way it was explained to me is the models that have the 182RG or later type set up are the ones to have. I was talking about buying a certain model and my IA would not entertain it. The earlier model 210’s with the electro hydraulics are ok, they can still be good value. If you have good jacks and good arms you can pump the pressure up by hand with the lever instead of a mule. I’ve also read you can make an adapter for an electric drill to do the same. The mule I have seen was too cumbersome to use for most people. There is an early model 210 I would like to buy and it doesn’t put me off it.

Antonio wrote:

Some CAMOs and aviation authorities insist that all of those actuators must be opened up and all seals replaced every five years, with a lot of potential associated problems.

You see the flying schools with the 172RG having to do this and it is a real pain. You are right about ELA2 making a big improvement to the realistic maintenance of these A/C.

Antonio wrote:

a T/210M or newer would be my recommendation.

Once properly maintained then they are very reliable and combined capabilities and performance are difficult to surpass in the SEP world.

This is very true, the legacy model 182’s and 206’s are so expensive now due to their utility uses, that they make the 177/210 look good value now.

Buying, Selling, Flying
EISG, Ireland
129 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top