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

[RFguy]

I think you want to know as much as can be known about an aircraft type and the maintenance history associated with the type of aircraft

.... before you buy it.  I really soaked up the Jab airframe books , manuals , construction manuals. and forums and history first.

I'm casually looking at Grumman AA5 Tigers, Cessnas and various Pipers, Beechcraft,  right now.  I've realised there is ALOT To KNOW about what goes bad and needs/needed work  in these older aircraft.  A literal encylopedia of common/ maintenance history requirements....  SO unless you have an 'expert' at your fingertips with  type knowledge, and in any case, that sort of knowledge is handy to know anyway .

 

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by RFguy

[pmccarthy]

It depends how much risk you think there is and how much trouble you want to take. If the plane is $10k less than others and you think the worst that can happen is a $10k fix, then a test fly and glance through the log books might be enough. That’s what I have done anyway, and haven't been disappointed.

[KRviator]

5 hours ago, RFguy said:

I think you want to know as much as can be known about an aircraft type and the maintenance history associated with the type of aircraft

.... before you buy it.  I really soaked up the Jab airframe books , manuals , construction manuals. and forums and history first.

Some good advice there. Especially with the internet there is a phenomenal amount of info out there for most aircraft, ranging from POH's to planning apps and forums discussing maintenance squawks and fixes. The tough bit about VH registered birds though is there ain't an awful lot you can do, outside Schedule 8, unless you can convince CAsA to approve a CAR42ZC authorisation.

 

I sent a THIRD email to a broker today, basically saying 'if you don't want to give me the detail I've asked for, or if -KMT has been sold, at least let me know and I'll take it off my shortlist". Wonder if I'll get a reply to that one??

Still no answer from the other two brokers about the Bonza or Deb either. Idongeddit.🤷‍♂️

 

I'm going to flick an email to Bunbury about that TwinCo later this week, covering off the list in the previous post. A few more $$ to run, but could be the best candidate.

[Bosi72]

As a seller, if I have a choice of getting $5k more but subject to this and subject to that, I would rather accept $5k less from a buyer who is happy with "sold as-is". But that's me.

 

From personal experience as a buyer, information that LAME's daughter piloted the aircraft was sufficient insurance that aircraft is in good condition regardless of age, logbook and a fresh MR. 

 

My key question to LAME was what previous owner didn't do that he suggested to him. He said ~$8k for control cables which I offered immediately, but he said that wasn't urgent, can wait.

 

Finally the "Contract document" was more of a receipt where owner(seller) signed that he received money for the aircraft, then we both signed the other Casa forms, and that was it.

 

At the next MR I replaced cables.

 

But I can understand how this can be very frustrating. Good luck, I'm sure you will find and buy the aircraft you want.

[skippydiesel]

I would council sellers to be very very cautious about engaging a "broker" ;

 

At sub $200k asking price the broker isn't even going to bother to reserch the aircraft, he/she is selling, so all questions will be referred on to you - might as well not pay the fee & do the job yourself.

The broker is going to inflate the asking price, just in the off chance there is a gullible buyer out there. So what you say if I gets my dosh . In reality there are not so many gullible buyers and your aircraft will spend many week/months being advertised with only the occasional "tyre kicker" to break the monotony.

Then your precious aircraft  will have a reduced sign placed on it and spend another long period hoping for that buyer.

Likely another reduction befor the "one real buyer" appears and then he/she will bargain the price down, lower than you would have accepted, if he sale had been conducted more professionally - you could have achieved a quicker better result yourself at less cost.

I know of one  broker who frequently appears to ask at least $15-20K over market trends - I doubt he gets anywhere near this as "his" aircraft seem remarkably slow to sell.

From my admittedly small experience (hope there will be no more) - the broker is an unnecessary hindrance, to what should be a relativly simple, short negotiation. He/she will come up with all sorts of BS about contracts, pre purchase deposits, etc to "protect" the vendor/buyer,  as if any of this is actually necessary and in any way actually provides a meaningful service - dont do it!.

[pmccarthy]

Quite a few aircraft are listed privately and then appear in a broker's advert. So the broker must actively pursue sellers who have listed shiny aircraft that he can boost. 

[KRviator]

12 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I would council sellers to be very very cautious about engaging a "broker" ...From my admittedly small experience (hope there will be no more) - the broker is an unnecessary hindrance, to what should be a relativly simple, short negotiation. He/she will come up with all sorts of BS about contracts, pre purchase deposits, etc to "protect" the vendor/buyer,  as if any of this is actually necessary and in any way actually provides a meaningful service - dont do it!.

Wholeheartedly agree!

 

I'd rather lose the 5-10K extra I "might" get by using a broker but most of that would be lost in their fee anyway. I'd sooner get an email from a genuine potential buyer and be able to call them and answer their questions directly but more importantly accurately! Hell, I recently listed a LandCruiser for sale and uploaded 27 photos including one of the auxiliary electrical busses and accessories we installed! And that's just for a car! Looks like it's sold too, sight unseen to a bloke in WA who'll fly over, do the deal, and ship it home next week, he called, we had a half-hour chat, and he paid the deposit when he got off the phone. I can only wonder just how many people do call to enquire about something like THIS Bonza or This one that doesn't even have a photo. Really...?

8 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Quite a few aircraft are listed privately and then appear in a broker's advert. So the broker must actively pursue sellers who have listed shiny aircraft that he can boost. 

It'd be an interesting conversation should one of these muppets I've been trying to deal with make contact when I list the RV-9..."Well, you didn't reply to my emails or calls when I was a potential buyer, why should I believe you won't do the same to anyone else when they enquire about my plane??"

 

Though one of the brokers, the one who'd been ignoring me since 03rd May finally replied last night "Oh, for some reason the emails weren't going through, but I've taken a deposit on -KMT"...Except he uses a Gmail account (another turn-off for me, you don't even use your business domain for brokerage emails?!?), so the chances of those emails not going through? Pretty bloody slim, methinks....

 

16 hours ago, Bosi72 said:

My key question to LAME was what previous owner didn't do that he suggested to him. He said ~$8k for control cables which I offered immediately, but he said that wasn't urgent, can wait.

That's a great question, I'll definitely add it to things to ask the LAME with whatever I buy! 👍

 

[onetrack]

KRAviator - Not putting down your sales ability, but with the current level of Landcruiser demand, and the extreme shortage of good Landcruisers, you could sell an ex-tribal Landcruiser from some remote community today, with just a one line, no photo ad.

I experienced this in 1995 when I sold my 80 series turbodiesel auto wagon. I'd paid $50K for it in June 1992, and sold it in November 1995 with 170,000 kms on the odometer.

Such was the demand for them in that period, I advertised it for $40K and I was knocking back buyers with a stick.

The first buyer who rolled up bought it on the spot, dents and all, without even quibbling about the price.

 

Aircraft don't exactly fall into the same level of demand. But you're right, if you really want to sell something, you have to put in the effort.

I believe many aircraft owners are reluctant to part with their aircraft, due to numerous reasons, and this leads to the attitude of, "I'll only sell it if the price offered is right". Many brokers represent this same attitude.

 

There's nothing like coming across a seller who really needs to sell their aircraft - and they have what you want, and the sale price is excellent value.

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by onetrack

[RossK]

having bought within the last 12 months I can relate to a lot of this.

Our dealings with brokers were less than great.

One AC we were interested in, we were never able to get a copy of the log books. AC apperently blew the motor  and was withdrawn from sale - I only found out by tracking down the owner and ringing him directly after 3 weeks of back and forth with the broker.

 

We ended up buying privately - good listing with plenty of photos showing what you want - decowled engine, instrument panel, cockpit setup etc, followed up by prompt replies with log books, maintenance records etc.

ie a seller who knew their AC inside and out and wanted to sell it.

[Thruster88]

Fortunately for KR the RV's are the land cruiser of the sky. It will sell itself.  

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 19/05/2021 at 3:12 PM, KRviator said:

The short answer, apparently, is "very".

 

So the back story is I didn't listen to the KRviatrix when she said "Build a -10!". Nope, I thought I knew better and built an RV-9...Well, two became 4 rather quickly and we need 4 seats, so I've been plane-shopping for the last year or so, asking the brains trust here of their opinions on the Cardinal and Comanche. But that's not the point...What bloke, whose missus gives permission to build an RV-10, builds an RV-9?!?🤬

 

 

I cant imagine you’ll like reading this. GA has a fatal accident every 100 000 hrs. If you fly 50 hrs a year, that’s 1/2000. The population-wide risk of a kid dying is about 1/2000 per year (but that includes stuff like cancer as well as accidents). So, if you fly, the kids’ risks double from 1/2000 to 1/1000. I have a two seater and fly with one kid at a time. There is no right answer, IMHO. 

[Thruster88]

2 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I cant imagine you’ll like reading this. GA has a fatal accident every 100 000 hrs. If you fly 50 hrs a year, that’s 1/2000. The population-wide risk of a kid dying is about 1/2000 per year (but that includes stuff like cancer as well as accidents). So, if you fly, the kids’ risks double from 1/2000 to 1/1000. I have a two seater and fly with one kid at a time. There is no right answer, IMHO. 

I would argue that if you fly GA with caution and knowledge it can be very very safe. I just searched ATSB data base for 2017 accidents,  in PRIVATE flying there were 5 fatal accidents. They fitted into just three categories, running out of fuel, VFR into IMC and exceeding the envelope. All easily avoidable. 

 

Cessna 310 no fuel

Tobago angel flight vfr into imc OMG.

Cessna 172 vfr into imc

Grumman perth stalled

C210 in flight break up.

[Blueadventures]

23 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I would council sellers to be very very cautious about engaging a "broker" ;

 

At sub $200k asking price the broker isn't even going to bother to reserch the aircraft, he/she is selling, so all questions will be referred on to you - might as well not pay the fee & do the job yourself.

The broker is going to inflate the asking price, just in the off chance there is a gullible buyer out there. So what you say if I gets my dosh . In reality there are not so many gullible buyers and your aircraft will spend many week/months being advertised with only the occasional "tyre kicker" to break the monotony.

Then your precious aircraft  will have a reduced sign placed on it and spend another long period hoping for that buyer.

Likely another reduction befor the "one real buyer" appears and then he/she will bargain the price down, lower than you would have accepted, if he sale had been conducted more professionally - you could have achieved a quicker better result yourself at less cost.

I know of one  broker who frequently appears to ask at least $15-20K over market trends - I doubt he gets anywhere near this as "his" aircraft seem remarkably slow to sell.

From my admittedly small experience (hope there will be no more) - the broker is an unnecessary hindrance, to what should be a relativly simple, short negotiation. He/she will come up with all sorts of BS about contracts, pre purchase deposits, etc to "protect" the vendor/buyer,  as if any of this is actually necessary and in any way actually provides a meaningful service - dont do it!.

Skippy, stick to your guns. Restate your offer and terms, say offer remains for 10 days then reduces by $50 per week and in six weeks offer is withdrawn. Then turn back and walk away.  This is said taking into account that the aircraft and its equipment inventory is acceptable to you and no equipment is possible to exchanged for inferior equipment. (Been done before) Hope it works out for you and the seller. Cheers.

[KRviator]

3 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I cant imagine you’ll like reading this. GA has a fatal accident every 100 000 hrs. If you fly 50 hrs a year, that’s 1/2000. The population-wide risk of a kid dying is about 1/2000 per year (but that includes stuff like cancer as well as accidents). So, if you fly, the kids’ risks double from 1/2000 to 1/1000. I have a two seater and fly with one kid at a time. There is no right answer, IMHO. 

Reading it doesn't worry me. I, effectively, built a plane in my back shed. A plane that I have flown to 10,000', down Victor 1 at 500' and based it at what can be considered a marginal airstrip.

That being said, I don't believe in risk aversion so much as risk management. When we flew Victor 1, we both had our life jackets on, I routinely fly wearing a tactical vest filled with survival goodies and a PLB in one of the pockets, and we fly in an RV-9, that - short of flying it into a cliff face - any crash landing should be survivable if not actually injury-free, so long as it is under control.

Given that the next phase of our flying is likely to involve NVFR, it makes sense to consider something like a Twin-Co, a light twin it may be, but again, it should climb away (slowly) on 1 engine at our normal operating weights, it is powered by arguably the most reliable piston engine going, and it is by its' nature a twin, with a reasonable SE service ceiling, making NVFR flights safer.

 

Flying isn't inherently unsafe, but failing to address those known, and 'known unknown' risks is what creates the hazards.

[skippydiesel]

FYI: Few more suspect paragraphs from the vaunted Aircraft Sales Contract;

 

Seller's Inability to Perform

 If the Aircraft is destroyed or in Seller's opinion damaged beyond repair, Seller shall promptly notify Buyer. On receipt of such notification, this Agreement will be terminated and the Seller shall return to Buyer all payments made in accordance with this Agreement, and Seller will be relieved of any obligation to replace or repair the Aircraft. (b) Seller will not be responsible or deemed to be in default for delays in performance of this Agreement due to causes beyond Seller's control and not caused by Seller's fault or negligence.

 

Waiver  

Either party's failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement against the other party shall not be construed as a waiver thereof so as to excuse the other party from future performance of that provision or any other provision.

 

Severability  

The invalidity of any portion of the Agreement shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof

[planesmaker]

Skippy those last few paragraphs appear to protect you as much as the seller, normal contract stuff. 

Your research and inspection of said aircraft is to be commended, not many go to the effort you have done. A more honest aircraft of the type would be hard to find and I doubt there is anything hidden in the logbook. Seller, I believe answered all your questions as honestly as he could. However if you put yourself in the sellers shoes, would you want the buyer to be able to sue you for anything he might find wrong? He is selling a home built aircraft after all. This is why you must do a thorough inspection and research prior to buying to ensure you are happy with the purchase, which you have done. The contract seems to be standard legal document. 

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, planesmaker said:

Skippy those last few paragraphs appear to protect you as much as the seller, normal contract stuff. 

Your research and inspection of said aircraft is to be commended, not many go to the effort you have done. A more honest aircraft of the type would be hard to find and I doubt there is anything hidden in the logbook. Seller, I believe answered all your questions as honestly as he could. However if you put yourself in the sellers shoes, would you want the buyer to be able to sue you for anything he might find wrong? He is selling a home built aircraft after all. This is why you must do a thorough inspection and research prior to buying to ensure you are happy with the purchase, which you have done. The contract seems to be standard legal document. 

I have no doubts about the seller or his aircraft - this is about the "broker" who I have lost all patience with. I have written to the seller, expressing my desire to complete the sale with him, should he choose to do so - yet to hear back.

 

Regarding the so called contract: Below are the 3 most disturbing paragraphs but not the only ones (my comments in red):

Warrenties

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 this is a 16 year old kit aircraft, even the mention of warranties is ridiculous - should be removed including warranties as to the accuracy of the Aircraft's logbooks, made by Seller or agent. this is very disturbing - the aircraft Log Book is a legal document any suggestion of falsification is concerning. I dont believe this is a legally applicable statement - remove 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 last sentence is at variance with Australian law which holds the vendor liable for any undisclosed known or should have known defects which subsequently lead to injury or death - must be removed. This attempt to undermine Au law is despicable

Seller's Inability to Perform

 If the Aircraft is destroyed or in Seller's opinion damaged beyond repair, Seller shall promptly notify Buyer. On receipt of such notification, this Agreement will be terminated and the Seller shall return to Buyer all payments made in accordance with this Agreement, and Seller will be relieved of any obligation to replace or repair the Aircraft. (b) Seller will not be responsible or deemed to be in default for delays in performance of this Agreement due to causes beyond Seller's control and not caused by Seller's fault or negligence.

This whole paragraph is is in opposition to common sense & law - the buyer (not the seller) has always has the right to reject a  good/service that he/she has reason to be dissatisfied with - this is usually followed by a claim for full refund of moneys.

Waiver  

Either party's failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement against the other party shall not be construed as a waiver thereof so as to excuse the other party from future performance of that provision or any other provision.

This is "gobbledy gook" - if it suggests what I think it does, that is should the seller or buyer fail to follow through on the agreement then the agreement stands for the other (see below)

Severability  

The invalidity of any portion of the Agreement shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.

This statement invalidates the whole agreement. An agreement where a "portion" is invalid is no longer an agreement and must be abandoned or renegotiated

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 27/05/2021 at 8:22 PM, Thruster88 said:

I would argue that if you fly GA with caution and knowledge it can be very very safe. I just searched ATSB data base for 2017 accidents,  in PRIVATE flying there were 5 fatal accidents. They fitted into just three categories, running out of fuel, VFR into IMC and exceeding the envelope. All easily avoidable. 

 

Cessna 310 no fuel

Tobago angel flight vfr into imc OMG.

Cessna 172 vfr into imc

Grumman perth stalled

C210 in flight break up.

That is true. The Finer Points aviation podcast says to have *written* personal minimums. (I actually don’t) I wonder if it would be a good idea to have two sets of personal minimums, one for flying alone and one for flying with the family. For example, 15 kt crosswind alone, 7 kt flying with the family. So, for example, setting off and seeing how the cloud is would be okay flying alone, but below personal minimums for flying with the family. 

[facthunter]

There's always been (for me) planes I would fly but would not take passengers (other than the owner) with me. Fly within the combination of both your ability and the planes capability. Test flights should be done solo where it's not required to crew with more and bigger stuff might be required to carry out recordings done by other technical people.

   Things can change  Light misty rain on base and you lose forward  visibility. Wet runway affects X-wind limits. Landing into a setting sun. Bad planning ... Avoid..   You must have a limit at all times but if others are involved, it's reasonable to give that the consideration it deserves and be extra careful but I can't help thinking why not be extra careful ALL the time.. Getting into the sky is rarely a life and death decision. There's always a tomorrow  IF you allow it to be, for you.   Nev

   

[skippydiesel]

On 28/05/2021 at 7:50 AM, planesmaker said:

Skippy those last few paragraphs appear to protect you as much as the seller, normal contract stuff. 

Your research and inspection of said aircraft is to be commended, not many go to the effort you have done. A more honest aircraft of the type would be hard to find and I doubt there is anything hidden in the logbook. Seller, I believe answered all your questions as honestly as he could. However if you put yourself in the sellers shoes, would you want the buyer to be able to sue you for anything he might find wrong? He is selling a home built aircraft after all. This is why you must do a thorough inspection and research prior to buying to ensure you are happy with the purchase, which you have done. The contract seems to be standard legal document. 

Hi Planesmaker - I should like to add to my earlier response to your comment above:

 

I thank you for your kind words - and apologist for my demands on your valuable time - your patience, good humour and unfailing quiet curtesy, is something we should all aspire too.

 

This is my first and hopefully last, exposure to an aircraft sales "broker" - they may not all be the same and I may have unwittingly stumbled on the worst of his species, however I have found his performance to be something akin to  a caricature of a particularly inept second hand car sales person, as might be  portrayed in a  "soapy".

 

Your statement "The contract seems to be standard legal document." in my view seeks to legitimise what I see as an almost whole bogus document ie not worth the" paper" it is written on and unlikely to be "legal" in any sense at all.

 

I have presented a draft Aircraft Sales Agreement to the seller. It is a much simpler, plain English, document than the brokers. It is essentially a, description of the aircraft,  acknowledgment of payment and  transfer of title  - he can modify it as he pleases, use it or not - I have often used something similar in my many vehicle/machinery transactions (never had a problem). Yet to receive any response at all.

 

The phrase "as is where is" pretty much covers/removes any potential for belated complaint/law suits. As long as the vendor has not documented unsubstantiated claims for the item (aircraft) or hidden a known or should have known, safety issue that later causes injury/death, there is little chance of being sued. 

[KRviator]

It turns out it is not only aircraft brokers who don't seem to give a phlying phuck about potential customers. New car sales staff are the same. Well, some anyway...

We wanted to buy a new Prado for the KRviatrix, and so the search began. One salesman from Singleton Toyota basically told us "I don't want to let you test drive the car here, because you could then go and buy it somewhere else!", but relented when he realized we would actually accept the wait (3-6 months) if we couldn't find a car in stock. Incidentally, this dealer also failed to send through the promised quote until we chased him up asking where it was, and was still $1,600 more expensive than the cheapest quote we got anyway.

 

After spending the better part of an hour looking at a Prado at Gosford a couple weekends ago, the sales rep there promised to send through the relevant spec sheet via email as they didn't have any printed brochures for potential customers (WTF?!?) and a Toyota-specific form to confirm eligibility for fleet pricing. Reckon he did? Nope.

A follow-up call to that dealer yesterday was met with the "That salesman is on an RDO today, but I'll send him a message and he'll contact you when he gets in tomorrow morning", which I followed up with my own email to him with a couple more specific questions. Think that has been replied to?

Then there's the sales staff at Lismore Toyota, Lander Toyota and Ryde Toyota, all of whom have yet to have their sales staff return a call.

 

Two different salesmen from Penrith Toyota basically said "I'm looking at the computer and there's no unallocated Prado's of that spec anywhere in NSW, there's one in Adelaide, and one in Hobart"...But of course, "we can order one in for you".

 

I eventually found the vehicle I want in Canterbury - a 5 hour one-way trip - after the salesman there said "We just brought one out of storage this morning, hang on and I'll confirm it's what you want", and called back about 5 minutes later. We agreed on a price, he emailed the contract, I signed it, and they've been paid in full via Osko less than 2 hours after I called him. Probably the easiest sale he's ever made. I'll pick it up around 1500 tomorrow and be home in time for a late dinner.

 

No less than 37 dealers were called, from as far north as Ballina, west to Dubbo and south to Sydney looking for this specific vehicle. Most were fairly open "No, we don't have one, and you're looking at at least a 2 month wait", a couple said "We don't have one in stock, but do have an unallocated one enroute, due 3/5/7 weeks" but a special few, 4 in total, promised to call back, either because all their sales staff were busy, or the sales rep was going to check availability, etc. Four out of 37, or more than 10% of those called couldn't be asred actually doing that! I'll never know if they had a vehicle in stock, nor will they ever know they could have sold one today simply by picking up the phone.

 

As a sales rep, I would have thought it is almost your duty to follow up each and every potential lead to achieve a sale for your employer - and your bank balance. Guess I'm wrong about that - or my work ethic is higher than a car salesman...

 

[RFguy]

Did you buy a 182 ?  

[KRviator]

2 hours ago, RFguy said:

Did you buy a 182 ?  

Not yet. I still check the various websites a couple times a day though!

 

Emailed those Q's from a page or two ago to Bunbury about their Twin-Co and waiting to hear back. The contact in the ad is a guest of hotel quarantine at present, and said she'd get back to me when she is released by her jailers.

 

I also still like that Deb that's listed as well, being a single, Mogas-capable etc, and am trying to track down a FB account for the owner to email him directly with the questions the broker ignored. If anyone knows a David Addison from Ballarat, let him know to fire his broker!

[skippydiesel]

KR - I suggested to my aircraft owners, that they dispensed with the brokers services - I guess he has filled their heads with suggestions that I am going to sue them for every defect that I find - they have not replied to my offers to continue the sale, directly with them, at the already agreed price and conditions.

 

There will be another aircraft jut around the corner and probably better too.

[kgwilson]

Murphy's law says that as soon as you have signed the contract and paid the money a far better cheaper exact item you want will be immediately available close to where you live.