Depression loss for missing logs and damage.

[Hank]

When I bought mine in 2007, Jimmy Garrison was still running valuation articles regularly in the MAPA Log. There was a general statement for % Depreciation for gear up landings, with a disclaimer that properly repaired gear ups more than 10 years ago did not affect the value. My plane had a gear up about 5 years before I bought it. No problemo.

[m20kmooney]

17 minutes ago, Hank said:

When I bought mine in 2007, Jimmy Garrison was still running valuation articles regularly in the MAPA Log. There was a general statement for % Depreciation for gear up landings, with a disclaimer that properly repaired gear ups more than 10 years ago did not affect the value. My plane had a gear up about 5 years before I bought it. No problemo.

Mr. Garrison’s is entitled to his opinion but he’s not paying the money. Therefore it has no bearing in the purchase decision. 

Edited February 18, 2019 by m20kmooney

[Hank]

7 minutes ago, m20kmooney said:

Mr. Garrison’s is entitled to his opinion but he’s not paying the money. Therefore it has no bearing in the purchase decision. 

Everything is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Everything I own is for sale for the right price. Not everyone will pay the right price for everything.

[Oldguy]

39 minutes ago, m20kmooney said:

Mr. Garrison’s is entitled to his opinion but he’s not paying the money. Therefore it has no bearing in the purchase decision. 

I believe Jimmy not only brokers planes for others, but also buys them and will then sell them. In those cases, his opinion does carry weight as he is spending his own money.

But in this case the OP is asking for others to provide information about something for which there is no settled answer, so all anyone can provide is an opinion, and as you acknowledged, he is entitled to his.

[mark21m20c]

We bought a 67 m20c with significant damage . the damage was from 1967 (aircraft had 105 hours at time of damage) aircraft was repaired.  Aircraft has 3700 hours and she flys straight  . Her performance numbers are at POH numbers . She sat for 10 years outside . On the plus side was price , she flys straight and engine was factory overhaul with new crank (900 hours). ON minus side was she needed every thing!

She was taken apart and is almost back together .

0 timed engine . overhauled gear. new glass .new panel . new avionics . stc windshield, gap seals . she is stripped but still needs paint and interior . The tail and control surfaces are removed and have been painted.

WE are making her as close to new as we can get her. We are 90% done. We paid 7K for her . The big cost avionics (gtn 650 gtx345 gma 345 gnc255 two g5 flight stream 510).We plan to fly 1000 hours next 2 years . NO plans to ever sell her.

Because the airplane flys straight and performs at poh #s and the price was adjusted I felt good about the purchase.

[m20kmooney]

19 hours ago, warrenehc said:

Hello all,

I’m looking to purchase a Mooney M20E. The owner states the plane has all logs and no damage. The owner provided me with all logs. On page one it says “logs lost”. The plane is a 1965 and the logs start in 1973. It also says a tail number change. Searching that number it shows significant damage on the 337 in 1973. The plane has flown and passed annuals from different shops every year since 1974.

The owner has the plane priced reasonably all things considered minus the logs are not complete and significant damage reported on the 337. It appears the plane has been repaired to as new condition.

My question is what would be a % depreciation of a plane with he logs missing and significant damage. 

What was the "significant damage on the 337" ? Do you know? And why did the owner tell you the plane has all logs and no damage?

[Bravoman]

I put stuff like this in the bad juju category. You want to start out with good karma, not bad. Particularly on something that is supposed to be fun. I would move on to  the next candidate.

[David_H]

1 hour ago, Bravoman said:

I put stuff like this in the bad juju category. You want to start out with good karma, not bad. Particularly on something that is supposed to be fun. I would move on to  the next candidate.

To make the below story short: I sensed "Bad JuJu" and made the trip to check the plane out anyhow. Details are below if you want to know the specifics.

During a phone call I had while looking for a plane, a seller explicitly said the plane he was looking to sell had no damage history and all logs were present. Before continuing, I'll note that I had already reviewed the plane's past history prior to the call and seen prior the damage history. However, I thought it was worth a look at the Logs to see if the repairs matched up. Sometimes things get overlooked... so I schedule a time to come look the plane over in person and review the logs.

I made the trip, arrived, and proceeded to inspect the log books. I started reviewing the latest Logs (most important) and working my way back through the years. I didn't discover that the earlier logs were missing until I hit the "Logs Missing Prior to XXXX" entry. Owner asks if I'm ready to take the plane up. I didn't want to find out what else he "forgot" to tell me. I left as soon as possible and wondered why I allowed myself to waste so much time.

Due to that experience, I always look at the earliest Log Book first, just to make sure there are no surprises there... then jump to the current Logs to ensure I don't waste my time again. Most importantly, I won't give a second look if any "Bad JuJu" is present.

 

Edited February 19, 2019 by David_H

[jaylw314]

5 minutes ago, David_H said:

To make the below story short: I sensed "Bad JuJu" and made the trip to check the plane out anyhow. Details are below if you want to know the specifics.

During a phone call I had while looking for a plane, a seller explicitly said the plane he was looking to sell had no damage history and all logs were present. Before continuing, I'll note that I had already reviewed the plane's past history prior to the call and seen prior the damage history. However, I thought it was worth a look at the Logs to see if the repairs matched up. Sometimes things get overlooked... so I schedule a time to come look the plane over in person and review the logs.

I made the trip, arrived, and proceeded to inspect the log books. I started reviewing the latest Logs (most important) and working my way back through the years. I didn't discover that the earlier logs were missing until I hit the "Logs Missing Prior to XXXX" entry. Owner asks if I'm ready to take the plane up. I didn't want to find out what else he "forgot" to tell me. I left as soon as possible and wondered why I allowed myself to waste so much time.

Due to that experience, I always look at the earliest Log Book first, just to make sure there are no surprises there... then jump to the current Logs to ensure I don't waste my time again. Most importantly, I won't give a second look if any "Bad JuJu" is present.

 

Sorry, that's not just "bad juju" (although I love that phrase!).  That's just outright bad.

I think these days it's not wrong to insist on access to electronic copies of the logbooks.  While still not foolproof (they could just not scan all the logs), it should be more apparent who is being thorough and who is trying to yank your chain...