michæl

Prior to a pre-buy, consider getting a title report for $95. that shows all the history of the plane, including previous n-numbers. From there, even google can reveal quite a bit. You may find things out about the plane that would cause you concern. Of course, getting a copy of the logs prior to any of this goes without saying. Placing a call to the people who did the work in the logs is a good way to get a better background on the plane, and if you're inclined, a call to Brian Kendrick could be a great first step.

Just be sure the contract doesn't only stipulate specifically "discovery of damage" or similar verbiage for your "out". As referenced in another thread, "damage" is subjective. Also, use an escrow service for the deposit. You'll hear many stories of people who had entirely legitimate grounds for a return of their deposit only to have to resort to litigation. There may be some things discovered that aren't necessarily "damage" but for you, they aren't acceptable.

I hired Brian Kendrick for a pre-buy on an airplane. One of the best people I've ever met. Check him out: http://mooneysupport.net/2.html

Wow, thank God. I just read that and it raised my blood pressure.. Holy cow I'm off this morning. Read as sarcasm it's hilarious. Geez.. Thanks for that...

The pre-buy should always be independent. One tactic that brokers will use is the "we'll throw this in (stc, options, etc.,) and while the plane is there we'll do the pre-buy". That's a tactic to keep you in the dark as to what you're buying. There's no good reason to not get a pre-buy unless you just like to gamble or really don't care what you're getting.

That's just foolish. Always get a pre-buy. Even if you are buying a supposed "Certified Pre-Owned" airplane. Even those airplanes have specific items that are not necessarily disclosed that will affect the value.

After that happened I found the S you mentioned and I talked to Eric - great guy and it looks like a great airplane. Not certain that I want an Acclaim though. I had my sights set on the O and for what I do I feel like it's a better fit. Shorter trips, etc. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I almost closed on an acclaim s recently but a last minute hiccup on the seller's end caused that deal to go off track. I've since gone back to just looking for the O. I was trying to get this done prior to year end and now with travel plans coming up and it being 2016 anyhow for the tax year I'm just going to see what comes up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yes, IR, t/w, glider,. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the feedback - this is my third airplane in nearly 20 years, 2nd Mooney. Also, everything I've written about here was experienced with a broker or discovered with the involvement of a mechanic on a pre-buy. Hence the $5,000 spent so far looking at just a few airplanes. I'm with you - have been going the professional route from the beginning. Last plane I bought was one year old and bought direct from the owner. Clean, totally as represented, simple. This time around, not so much. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What surprised me was the number of planes I saw with extensive paint work done, and in some cases not noted at all in the logs. What causes all this partial repainting and if it was extensive enough to replace the wing walk, etc., why not just note it in the logs? What causes one to have thick globbing clear coat running all down the ailerons? Why is overspray all over the place? In some cases it's in the logs but never mentioned during any discussion with the seller. I've learned that when "year painted" is omitted from the listing that potentially is avoiding an issue. One wing repainted and not the other - and not in the logs. What's the deal there? A plane repainted three times in only a couple hundred hours yet not mentioned throughout several discussions with a seller? Sure, no big deal as long as it's discovered, right? I've got about $5,000 into travel looking at planes so far this fall. I'm chalking that up to getting a great education. By the way, with the 2015 - the first time I called there was full disclosure as to the nature of the work done on that plane. That's the way it should be. There's no excuse to cause someone to travel to see a plane with full intent to purchase it knowing full well that there are issues that should be disclosed. Like I said, I've learned a lot. Now that I've learned that there's no substitute for getting a copy of the logs prior to making travel plans, there's another thing: get a title search done from aerospace for $95. That shows N number changes and in one case I learned things based on the previous N number that I wouldn't have found out. In another case I found that the N number had been changed three times and the paint work was runny and sloppy.

Precisely. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I most likely will. As for this discussion, I feel that it has been productive in terms of broadly addressing, and shedding light on an important issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All the aircraft that I have been looking to buy have been between 2008 - 2015.

I'm happy to hear this. Unfortunately, there still seems to be a level of subjectivity with this issue in the industry that permits misleading contracts to be presented to buyers with consequences of deposit forfeiture. It's not unrealistic that a buyer would sign a contract and make a substantial deposit with the understanding that they have an "out" in the event damage history is "discovered". The problem is, the definition of damage history as we see, is arguably subjective (see several opinions posted above). Sellers attempt to present damage as non-damage due to circumstances surrounding the occurrence or cause, or by the means by which it was repaired. Don't expect that a damage discovery contingency in your contract will ensure the return of your deposit if the seller doesn't accept your definition of damage.

Mike, it's not a matter of whether or not damage was repaired properly or even if it compromised the airplane somehow - it's a matter of what is represented to a buyer. If a buyer is ok with certain damage history and is also understanding of the potential resale / value factors then it's straightforward and nothing is wrong with this. However, if a plane is listed as "no damage history" and it has been damaged and repaired, this is a misrepresentation - although as people here can see, not everyone considers it a misrepresentation. I'm with Alan, but it's not really a matter of opinion. Planes go under contract and return to market all the time, and why? Because the prospective buyer doesn't want the airplane with the damage history. Sadly, the cost to the buyer to discover these things can be quite high and it could all be avoidable if the definition of damage was clear. Let's be realistic, everyone knows what damage is and people who list their plane as a "no damage history" airplane know exactly what they are doing - especially when it's being sold with a "fresh annual" and a pre-buy with the seller's mechanic.

I'm not new to this, but some people are. I apologize for the somewhat rhetorical nature of this post, but I thought it would be helpful to clarify this issue after having just been reminded as to how representations can be made that are clearly not consistent with one's reasonable expectations i.e. "damage history". This situation could affect a new buyer even more substantially if they entered into a contract with a damage disclosure contingency, only to find themselves losing their deposit because of the subjectivity of this term. Bottom line: don't ever give a deposit that is not fully refundable if all buyer expectations are not met - and NEVER provide a deposit directly - always use an escrow service and define the terms of refundability clearly. If the seller isn't agreeable to this, or is offering other feel-good diversions and a free "pre-buy" at their shop, you're going to get into trouble. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The "this" I am referring to, is that "damage" is accepted to be subjective. If damage is merely a matter of opinion, then how should one interpret a "no damage history" representation on a for sale listing? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm simply asking the question. If an aircraft is listed as having "no damage history", what should a prospective buyer expect?

So, if this was the generally accepted understanding or "definition" of damage, then what type of logged repairs for damage would be acceptable for an aircraft listed as having "no damage history" ?

I'm interested to know what people generally consider "damage".

Has anyone added Air to their Ovation or Acclaim and if so, might you recommend where to have it done? Thank you ~

Ouch. Re-skin, period. Tank reseal, etc. Deduct / adjust for light damage history.

Will do - Thanks again.

Interestingly enough it was in Austria for a while too. Sure has gotten around in those 150 +/- hours.