Buying a plane...How flamin' hard is it?!?

[walrus]

forget the arrow unless you always have loooong runways.

[Bosi72]

Have you considered posting an ad in a "Wanted" section? 

 

[KRviator]

14 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Today you can fly Jetstar IFR through heavy weather right across the country, and when you reach clear weather still hire a good GA touring aircraft to go off the main routes locally. you get more destination time and a much lower total cost, so the day of the optioned up Singles and Twins may well be over.

 That's not necessarily true in my case, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, we're in the Upper Hunter, 5 hours from Sydney Airport, 2 from Newcastle and 2 from Tamworth, there's no RPT service within cooee for us. Due to that, in the time taken to drive to Sydney, park, check-in and get to the gate, we could have pushed a Twin-Co/Bo/Deb out of our hangar at home, flown to Townsville and be taxiing to parking.

Secondly, I've flown Jetstar once and would never do it again. The seat pitch and service is woeful. For a family of four it is $400pp Sydney-Townsville 4 weeks out, so $3,200 return with Jetstar, $470pp with RedRat, plus parking, fuel & airport travel time. 5.5 hrs at 155KTAS at 60LPH x 2 =a total 660L of fuel at $1.60-2.20/L. The Deb has a Mogas STC available, but even without, the total Avgas cost is still less than the one way cost of airfares for 4. (Un)fortunately, both the rugrats do like flying and regularly want to go after school, so it's not as simple as thinking "buy a 4-seater for the KRviatrix & me". We do need a 4 seater to carry 4 of us routinely.

 

Thirdly, with the airlines, you're limited to flying when they want to go and where they want to go. Certainly I agree with GA you're weather-constrained, but good (safe?) planning takes that in to account. We haven't had to be somewhere on a certain date and left it too late that we had to fly in iffy weather. For that, we do fly RPT, but if it's going to Townsville to see the Cowboys play we leave a day or two in advance and enjoy a 2-day stay in Townsville before the game. If we do get held up, we've still got that 24-48 hr margin before the game. We do the same with QF anyway, making sure we get there the day before lest they cancel the flight. It's happened before (to a good mate) and he made it to the game by less than a bees d*ck.

12 hours ago, Bosi72 said:

Have you considered posting an ad in a "Wanted" section? 

 

I have, yes, but I haven't thought it necessary just yet. Given there's several potential candidates advertised through these brokers I 'thought' there might be a suitable aircraft among those listed. The tough part is finding out as none of the asshat brokers will bother to reply to you, hence this thread.

 

The other option I've seriously considered is going through the likes of AirHistory, JetPHotos, etc to find those Comanches/Twin-Co's/Bonanza or Deb's with tip tanks and penning a letter to their owners directly. VH-ADD for example is just down the road, and has been owned by the same bloke since 1972! My logic (flawed it may be) would be he's gotta be getting close to hanging up the headset, and would he like to see his plane kept flying, rather than becoming a hangar queen?

Edited May 24, 2021 by KRviator

[RFguy]

Rob, give us your passenger weights, and total baggage, required distance minimum per hop, lets call it 3.5 hours + reserve ? ) and we'll figure it out for you. 

 

on twins, There's a piper-senica-2 VH-PBL (Frank's old plane ?) sitting around at Cowra in good nic., I'm sure they'd give it away.  counter rotating propos I thought.

 

 

[facthunter]

Contra props are/fly better. Someone has to keep more spares though. The earlier PIPERS were much better corrosion proofed than the Senica's etc but that has to be inspected anyhow. You would have loved my Twin Comanche.  6 tank system 1200 hour total time  airframe and engines, NDH Factory Turbocharged engines ,gap seals fitted. VH LLV is still around but I had the suoerchargers removed as it's no good for training on an orphan.. The whole engine is a different (strengthened) version. Nev

[skippydiesel]

Just when I thought I had managed to survive all the excrement being delivered by the broker, settled on price & conditions, he hits me with his so called "Aircraft Sales Contract". 

 

Three pages of pseudo legal jargon. Big on quantity short on quality.

 

Inaccurate aircraft description, paragraph after paragraph of BS, most of which seemed to be saying thet the vendor could not be held to account for anything, including failure to deliver on the Aircraft Sales Contract

 

I found the following paragraph particularly disturbing;

 

"Except as provided otherwise in this agreement, this Aircraft is sold "as is". There are no warranties, either express or implied with respect to merchantability or fitness applicable to the Aircraft or any equipment applicable thereto including warranties as to the accuracy of the Aircraft's logbooks, made by Seller or agent. Buyer agrees that no warranty has been expressed or implied by Seller or agent and that Buyer has inspected the Aircraft and understands that it is being purchased "as is." Buyer hereby expressly waives any claim for incidental or consequential damages, including damages resulting in personal injury against Seller".

 

This is a 16 year old kit built aircraft - so is probably 20+ years old - I dont expect a "Warranty" of any description however I do expect that the legal status of the Log Book be respected and the vendor be liable for any known  (by him) undisclosed defect that results in injury/death.

[spacesailor]

THEN 

Put a Big RED line through it and return, for their correction.

You don't have to accept everything in a contract.

spacesailor 

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

THEN 

Put a Big RED line through it and return, for their correction.

You don't have to accept everything in a contract.

spacesailor 

Tried that - broker playing "hard ball" - if I dont sign, then no sale - so I guess it may be no sale, as I have no intention of compromising my principals on this.

[spacesailor]

If there,s a chance of logbook etc being False, isn,t that a criminal event, & if you sign anything likethat, On your resale, wouldn,t you be liable as well,

( my Delice had to be checked for speedo rewinding ).

spacesailor

 

[skippydiesel]

2 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

If there,s a chance of logbook etc being False, isn,t that a criminal event, & if you sign anything likethat, On your resale, wouldn,t you be liable as well,

( my Delice had to be checked for speedo rewinding ).

spacesailor

 

I believe that the aircraft Log Book(s) are legal documents  - falsification deliberate omission is therefore against the law.

 

I am not convinced that you can actually sign this away or the obligation of the vendor to disclose all known defects that may result in injury/death

[facthunter]

Unless the broker had been the owner, realistically how can HE be made responsible for documents that are not in any way prepared by him and I would be concerned if he had. Put yourself in his/her position. .  The aircraft owner /operator has sole responsibility for those logbooks. IF they can't be relied on, the sale price should be suitably adjusted. Nev

[KRviator]

3 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I found the following paragraph particularly disturbing;

 

"Except as provided otherwise in this agreement, this Aircraft is sold "as is". There are no warranties, either express or implied with respect to merchantability or fitness applicable to the Aircraft or any equipment applicable thereto including warranties as to the accuracy of the Aircraft's logbooks, made by Seller or agent. Buyer agrees that no warranty has been expressed or implied by Seller or agent and that Buyer has inspected the Aircraft and understands that it is being purchased "as is." Buyer hereby expressly waives any claim for incidental or consequential damages, including damages resulting in personal injury against Seller".

Yeah, the broker can f&*k that right off. You are legally entitled to rely on what is disclosed in the logbook, and for him to try to weasel out with that kind of jargon is enough to make me think twice too.

 

IF he won't budge, then there's more fish in the sea, it just might take you a bit longer. IF you want an RV-9A I can do you a deal when I've signed off the 100-hourly! 😛

 

6 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Unless the broker had been the owner, realistically how can HE be made responsible for documents that are not in any way prepared by him and I would be concerned if he had. Put yourself in his/her position. .  The aircraft owner /operator has sole responsibility for those logbooks. IF they can't be relied on, the sale price should be suitably adjusted. Nev

It's not that they can't be relied on by the broker, but the broker saying, in effect, they cannot be relied upon, and you have no claim either way because of that. About the only possible reason I can think of putting that in there is the logbooks saying something like "GTN-750 Installed 01/01/2019" and old mate finding he didn't like it and so removed it and put a GTN-650 in and forgot to log it, or a typo along those lines, there's a -650 installed, but someone typed -750. There's a $10K claim right there.

 

I like @facthunter's idea though, "You're saying I cannot rely on what is written in the logbook, that being the case, the logs have no value and the price needs to be adjusted downwards accordingly...Here's a bank cheque with my new and final offer"

[facthunter]

Some planes with missing /faked logbooks were considered unlikely or extremely difficult to ever be able to get a full C of A. I don't quite see how this can be gotten around. I think you will find this Contract a pretty normal Pro Forma.  In the big stuff there's a lot of BOGUS parts floating around that completely  frustrate any chance of getting the plane airworthy if used. It's an Industry problem. Even buying big stuff is risky. That's why used Australian  major Airlines planes even with very high total hours have commanded good prices in the past, on world markets. They had all the required AD's done. The other  CRAP goes to 3rd World countries where life is cheaper and no doubt a few bucks in a bag works wonders. It's a similar situation with SHIPS. Flags of convenience on rusty hulks with crew on them for years with little or no pay.  How we'd like it is one thing .. How it really IS is another. Nev

[skippydiesel]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Unless the broker had been the owner, realistically how can HE be made responsible for documents that are not in any way prepared by him and I would be concerned if he had. Put yourself in his/her position. .  The aircraft owner /operator has sole responsibility for those logbooks. IF they can't be relied on, the sale price should be suitably adjusted. Nev

Hi Nev - the owner of the aircrafts, Vendor and the purchaser , Buyer are signing the contract - not the broker. 

 

The broker is unlikely to have any responsibility for the aircraft or its sale, UNLESS it can be shown he has improperly advised the vendor (his client) such that laws are broken or the vendor is (financially) disadvantaged.

 

I can only speculate as to the brokers motivation - that is that he seeks to increase his standing/importance,(control?) by creating a level of mistrust between vendor/buyer that can only be "managed" through his bogus Aircraft Sales Contract.

Edited May 25, 2021 by skippydiesel

[onetrack]

Quote

"Except as provided otherwise in this agreement, this Aircraft is sold "as is". There are no warranties, either express or implied with respect to merchantability or fitness applicable to the Aircraft or any equipment applicable thereto including warranties as to the accuracy of the Aircraft's logbooks, made by Seller or agent. Buyer agrees that no warranty has been expressed or implied by Seller or agent and that Buyer has inspected the Aircraft and understands that it is being purchased "as is." Buyer hereby expressly waives any claim for incidental or consequential damages, including damages resulting in personal injury against Seller".

The first three sentences are fairly standard contract wording just outlining that neither the buyer nor his agent has expressed or implied any warranty. Fair enough.

But the last sentence needs to be crossed out, because it goes much further than "no warranty expressed or implied", and is trying to quash your legal right to sue, if you find something has been seriously and illegally misrepresented. If it was me, I'd be crossing out the last sentence, but agreeing to the previous three.

When you buy secondhand equipment/machinery items, it is extremely rare for it to come with a warranty, unless it is required by law.

But you have every legal right to sue if you later discover you have been lied to, cheated, or have been sold something with a substantial misrepresentation of facts or figures - that the owner/agent knew about.

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by onetrack

[Thruster88]

When I bought my RV6a almost a year ago the process could not have been more simple. We happened to be in a nearby town doing an annual on another RV. I was invited to look at "my" RV,  it was not listed for sale but I guess everything thing is if the price is right. I did not look at the log books or take a test flight. I was aware of all the vans and lycoming Service bulletins and AD's and knew what I was getting. A week later the owner delivered the aircraft. One year on and going through annual now I could not be happier.  

[RFguy]

Hi Stuart, a fortunate story-  you say "I was aware of all the vans and lycoming Service bulletins  and ADs " , but you did enquire if the ADs and SBs had been complied to ? Did they say yes? or was the price right that with an inspection that you did, and you know your aircraft from your trade,  ,that  you were satisfied there were no showstoppers ? - as you have a ton more aircraft day to day condition experience than most owners. 

When I bought my aircraft, I spent half a day going through the books verifying everything myself. It was watertight, and had been maintained at GA compliance/ paperwork level next door at a good facility.  I say "GA level" because private owner/operators (like myself)  in RAaus have a fair bit of leeway in real world practice - IE what actually happens on the street)  - glen

Edited May 25, 2021 by RFguy

[kgwilson]

Even if everything looks perfect and the vendor is very accommodating I still wouldn't buy anything before I'd checked the log books and flown it. RVs are aerobatic so the airframe may be more stressed than one that has just been used in good weather on cross country flights.

 

Even when buying a car you can look at 2 identical vehicles that have been mass produced and not had any accidents with the same km but they drive differently, the seating feels different, braking and handling can also be different. One may have had an owner who drove aggressively on lots of windy &/or gravel roads and one who only drove to work and had the odd long holiday drive.

 

It gives me peace of mind and affirms my commitment to part with substantial cash.

[skippydiesel]

10 hours ago, onetrack said:

The first three sentences are fairly standard contract wording just outlining that neither the buyer nor his agent has expressed or implied any warranty. Fair enough.

But the last sentence needs to be crossed out, because it goes much further than "no warranty expressed or implied", and is trying to quash your legal right to sue, if you find something has been seriously and illegally misrepresented. If it was me, I'd be crossing out the last sentence, but agreeing to the previous three.

When you buy secondhand equipment/machinery items, it is extremely rare for it to come with a warranty, unless it is required by law.

But you have every legal right to sue if you later discover you have been lied to, cheated, or have been sold something with a substantial misrepresentation of facts or figures - that the owner/agent knew about.

 

Hi 1track - that was just one paragraph out of  three pages - every sentence, even whole paragraphs that I rejected, I did so with explanation. I even rewrote the document putting it into plain english and removing all contradictory, superfluous, unintelligible (to me) sections. Result  "Contract" stands as is . Signing condition of sale - so no sale

Edited May 25, 2021 by skippydiesel

[poteroo]

5 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

Even if everything looks perfect and the vendor is very accommodating I still wouldn't buy anything before I'd checked the log books and flown it. RVs are aerobatic so the airframe may be more stressed than one that has just been used in good weather on cross country flights.

 

The logbooks need to be reconciled with the ADs and SBs in force for the serial number of the particular aircraft. Some compliance inspections might also be signed off into  the M/R so look these up too. (should all be stored in back of airframe logbook).

 

A consideration with RVs is in fact the aerobatics that may/may not have been done. In my experience with RVs and many, many RV owners: quite a bit of DYO  áerobatics' takes place out of sight out of mind. G knows whether airframes are overstressed.  

 

 As well, particularly with RVs, who knows whether they have been pushed thru turbulence at way above Va, and are suffering some damage to parts of the airframe. This flying too fast for the turbulence level is a lot more frequent than we'd like to believe.  Not all pilots, indeed, pilot/owners, are responsible.

 

Then there's the question of heavy landings.  They certainly happen with tailwheel models of RV, and don't appear too often in M/Rs or airframe logbooks. IMHO, there is widespread under reporting of any of these possible causes of airframe damage.

 

Not disagreeing with KGW, but if you are not really familiar with an aircraft make or model: then you have no show of appraising it's handling.  

 

In the case of RV's - my best advice is to take a well experienced fellow pilot with you. It really helps if they are a LAME or L2 as well. As with all flying - it comes down to total experience + experience on type + currency. 

 

happy days,

[aro]

17 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

"Except as provided otherwise in this agreement, this Aircraft is sold "as is". There are no warranties, either express or implied with respect to merchantability or fitness applicable to the Aircraft or any equipment applicable thereto including warranties as to the accuracy of the Aircraft's logbooks, made by Seller or agent. Buyer agrees that no warranty has been expressed or implied by Seller or agent and that Buyer has inspected the Aircraft and understands that it is being purchased "as is." Buyer hereby expressly waives any claim for incidental or consequential damages, including damages resulting in personal injury against Seller".

That paragraph doesn't surprise me. Have you ever bought a used car? As I recall they have similar wording, unless they explicitly offer a warranty as a selling point or it is required by law. I think there was even a standard wording saying that the dealer does not believe the odometer reading is correct.

 

The paragraph has no effect unless you actually want to sue the seller. The seller may have a preference to sell to someone who isn't positioning to be able to sue them if an inaccuracy is found in the log books etc.

 

My reaction is to accept the clause, be aware of what it means and factor it into the price negotiations. Buyer beware is always the underlying principle.

[KRviator]

But the problem with that clause is the broker is saying you cannot rely on what is written in the logbooks should you want to sue. "

 

An extreme example might be the Vans SB for HS cracks in the RV series. @skippydiesel reviews the logbooks, and finds the following "SB 16-03-28 c/w, crack found, stop drilled, doubler installed IAW SB". He thinks, "great, they've done the SB, found & fixed the problem, all's well!", when in reality, someone CBF inspecting the wing and just wrote it off as done, the aileron bracket fails with the aileron departing the airframe. @skippydiesel rolls inverted and augers in, and can no longer work as a result of injuries sustained.

 

He goes to sue the vendor for multi-squillions for lifetime care, et al, who points to the sales contract and says "Sorry, @skippydiesel, your fault entirely. You should have physically checked that SB was complied with, rather than relying on a logbook entry that says it was, because the sales contract you signed says you acknowledged you can't rely on what's written in the logbooks! Tough titties!"
 

Quote

There are no warranties, either express or implied with respect to merchantability or fitness applicable to the Aircraft or any equipment applicable thereto including warranties as to the accuracy of the Aircraft's logbooks, made by Seller or agent.

If the agent or vendor won't warrant the logbooks are accurate, they're worthless, and the price should be adjusted downwards significantly to reflect their (meaningless) value if they want to make a sale. Oh, and expect the aircraft to be disassembled to confirm compliance with SB's and AD's as applicable by the buyer's L2/LAME.

[spacesailor]

ABOUT LYING !.

IF l had lied about 10-1103,s first flight it Would have been ' grandfathered ' as a flying aircraft.

BUT

No one seems to be able to Say satisfactory the Definition of Flying !.

I had done Bunny hops, But is that a flight? .

At the time no one seemed aware of the impending doom, for those 16 H B builders.

spacesailor

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Gentlewomen & Women - the "Contract"  does closely resemble something you might get from a second hand car dealer - but this is not a car and my willingness to tolerate such shenanigans is way way less. I have bought & sold a lot of vehicles & equipment in my life and been fortunate, until now, to have had very limited exposure to charlatans like this broker.

 

Further I have made a point of including the owner/vendor in all correspondence - I have contacted him directly and suggested we finalise the sale (as already agreed) without further reference to the "broker" ( he will still have to pay the brokers fee). I have even prepared a draft sales contract for his use/modification - he has yet to respond & if under the thrall of the broker may not do so.

[RFguy]

Jab : And I might add I physically checked that all the SBs had been complied with by inspection, where possible , which meant alot of panel/ plate  removing.  That's why it took two days to do the research and the tick off spreadsheet, and most of a  day to do it... 

 

caveat emptor !