Any chance my plane will sell with only the past 4 years of logs?

[dbudd]

I bought a set of wings for my pacer that were just recovered from a salvage yard. The owner said he couldn’t understand why it was so hard to sell pa 22/20 parts.


Sent from my iPhone using ShortWingPipers.Org

[Subsonic]

Concur with those that have voted: DO NOT part it out. The time and effort required to part it out is substantial. To get all your money out of every last part is HARD. The "loss" you may assume in the near term selling the plane as a whole nice flying machine will be offset by the sudden large influx of capital for your situation. You're already resigned yourself to losing money when you buy an airplane. You know that. Selling it in one piece - with the transparency you've shown so far - should minimize any difference in what you may perceive to be of benefit in parting it out. In other words, people appreciate honesty and will pay for it. My 2 centavos.

[rmwalkersr]

Thank you all for your valuable feedback. With the airframe and wings in perfect shape, and the beautifully rebuilt engine running strong, my low-time bird is now enjoying a new home. The value of the plane did take a hit for not having complete log books, but someone is able to enjoy my bird and keep it flying for years to come.

[Jeff Pralle]

Situations like this are why as an IA I list all the times on every 337 form I file. That way the owner has a record to reference
stored in the aircraft permanent record with the FAA.

[Amigoone1940]

I had 3 near misses in the last few months, in cluding one not properly represented by the seller which cost me a pretty penny to go to see, my fault. i would would not part out this kind of airplane. show us what y got and bet you might be surprised by the interest, including mine.

[Steve Pierce]

I have looked at three different airplanes for 3 separate buyers this past week. I never left my computer and eliminated all three.

One airplane was a work of art and had cubic dollars thrown at it but after talking to three people who had been involved in it's construction I determined it did not meet my customer's mission. Actually, according to the guy that finished it, it just needs to sit in a hangar for people to look at. Not practical to fly and maintain.

On the second one I offended the seller because of the documentation I asked for. I never did get everything I asked for and finally got a snotty email response but what I did determine was that the supposed 50 hrs since major overhaul engine was actually overhauled 1671 hrs ago in 1965, lots of repairs like a new crank and new piston rings but some misinterpreted logbook entries that were actually pretty clear if you read them. No AD list since 2009 and that one didn't include any engine accessories. 1989 fabric, 2 non-sealed struts and a prime price, it was passed on.

The third one had lots of high resolution pictures and good documentation. After going through the pictures I had a page of discrepancies. I called the buyer and told him what I saw in the pictures and I could guarantee there was way more if I saw the plane in person. He decided not to pursue it so all I had in it was reviewing the pictures and telling him what I saw.

I learned years ago with modern technology I can eliminate a lot of perspective airplanes from my computer and sometimes even by talking to the seller. Be careful, there are some really nice airplanes and then there are money pits.

[Amigoone1940]

interesting comments, my reaction: the first airplane was fit for a museum thus not practical for your mission, the second even the most basic due diligence would have rejected it particularly with testy owner and there are many of those . The third one i do not understand because i do not know what the discrepancies were. Many of us can write a page of discrepancies the question is how serious and expensive to fix were they? particularly those that you could identify from pictures. and i ask myself how would i react if i'm told that "if i go to see your airplane i can guarantee I'll find lots of stuff wrong with it".

[Steve Pierce]

The first one was all custom, mechanic said you can't even remove the cowl without scratching paint. The owner flew it once and said "Not what I wanted, sell it".

Hose clamps holding the muffler to the exhaust pipes on both sides.
IMG_3999.jpeg

Nice bootleg thrustline modification.
IMG_3998.jpeg

Crunchy rudder.
IMG_4017.jpeg

What do these circuit breakers go to?
IMG_4013.jpeg

Interesting open concept extended baggage compartment.
IMG_4008.jpeg

And these are just a few examples. Gives me an idea of how the airplane was modified and maintained. Guy wanted to put it on a Part 135 certificate for guiding in Alaska for the Fall hunting season.