How much do airframe hours matter?

[AndreiC]

When looking at an airplane, how much do people weigh negatively higher airframe TT? For example, should a plane with 7000 TTAF be discounted compared to one with 3500 TTAF, all other things being equal? I know people care more about being continuously used, and a higher TTAF will be a plane which will have sat less, so that would be something in favor of a higher time plane. But at what kind of numbers does the number of hours start to weigh the price down?

[MikeOH]

Interesting question....not sure how Jimmy's cost guide takes total time into account.

My plane had around 5200 hours and that didn't bother me a bit.  I do remember not bothering with planes over 9,000 hours when I was shopping; but no real reason beyond thinking more 'stuff' might be worn out.

[201Steve]

To me, almost nothing. What’s the difference in a plane moving through the air and one sitting in a hangar? One is moving through air, another is sitting in air. It’s not like a car with wheels spinning and shocks working and brakes going. 
 

To me it’s more a proxy for number of takeoffs and landings but if it ran a lot of cross country, really could be just as many takeoff landing ops as a weekend warrior. 

[DCarlton]

I used to think it matters, but now that my plane has 5000 hours and the age of the population is increasing I don't care much.  Now if I saw a plane with 10,000 hours, I would assume it had been used for training and I'd probably look elsewhere.   

[EricJ]

Not much, imho.   Condition is far more important.   

[hammdo]

Almost 7800 hours on my C - never a trainer…

-Don

[McMooney]

close to 2000 on birdy,  might have to give her an autopilot for her birthday

[Utah20Gflyer]

I would start to think about it above 10k but it wouldn’t be an automatic deal killer.  It would depend a lot on condition and how it was being maintained.  My plane has under 4k hours.  

[Justin Schmidt]

Does matter to some banks for financing 

[PT20J]

I think time in service needs to be taken in context. The mechanic at a museum I used to volunteer at once offered that he had great job security because, "When they fly these old airplanes, they break. And, when they don't fly them, they break." The point being that machinery likes to be used. An aged hangar queen will likely not be problem free even if it has low time. That's why age as well as time in service and the logbooks showing evidence of good maintenance all need to be taken into consideration. Together they tell a story. Individually, they don't mean as much.

There was a M20J that flew daily traffic watch in the San Francisco Bay area in the 1980's. Someone here used to own it, and it's still flying I believe. Top Gun maintained it back in the day. When it got to 10,000 hours, Tom Rouch called Mooney and asked if there was anything special to look for at such a high time and the factory told him they had never seen one with that much time and to let them know if he found anything interesting (he didn't). 

[Andy95W]

2 hours ago, hammdo said:

Almost 7800 hours on my C - never a trainer…

-Don

That’s really close to my airframe time.  It flew pipeline patrol for about 10 years.

[ArtVandelay]

Depends, if it was used as a trainer I would definitely discount it.

[Paul Thomas]

20 years ago, there seemed to be a stigma to airplane that had 5,000 hours but hours seem to be less and less important as the fleet ages. The average hours on airframes will continue to increase. Hours may have been a better way to approximate condition before ads could be as detailed as they are now.

[Slick Nick]

Airframe hours don't really matter, especially on an airplane as well built as a Mooney. It's much more about HOW that airframe was cared for over it's lifetime. I've seen 1500 hour machines that are absolutely beat to sh!t, with corrosion everywhere, and 10,000 hour frames that have been maintained meticulously and look brand new inside.

[GeeBee]

If the airframe is life limited it makes a difference. For instance, the TBM's are life limited to 10,000 hours. After that, they are scrap. So a 7000 hour TBM would be seriously discounted. Are there 10K TBMs? Yes, Quest, the medical lab company flies a fleet of them every night and have sent two airframes to the scrap yard.

[201Steve]

9 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

the TBM's are life limited to 10,000 hours.

Is there not a way to legally ignore this arbitrary number? Particularly under part 91? Or does the rule of law explicitly prohibit an airplane, in perfectly good condition (as decided by an IA each year it undergoes annual inspection), from ever flying again? Sort of like engine/airframe “mandatory” SB’s or other declarations that are non regulatory?

When I say arbitrary, obviously TBM did not test their airplanes for 10,000 hours and find something specific to substantiate the number. It’s just made up out of thin air, more or less. 

[201Steve]

As the owner of a nearly 50 year old airplane and the experience that has come with it, if I were shopping for another airplane, I would favor a newer (less old) airplane with more hours over an older airplane with less hours. 
 

20 hours ago, Justin Schmidt said:

Does matter to some banks for financing 

Ah, the airplane experts. Banks and insurance companies. Kidding, but they use arbitrary figures as a general proxy for a lot of things. 

[LANCECASPER]

28 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

If the airframe is life limited it makes a difference. For instance, the TBM's are life limited to 10,000 hours. After that, they are scrap. So a 7000 hour TBM would be seriously discounted. Are there 10K TBMs? Yes, Quest, the medical lab company flies a fleet of them every night and have sent two airframes to the scrap yard.

The original TBM Structure Life Limit was 12,000 flights (cycles) or 16,000 flying hours. Quest applied and got theirs extended to 17,000 cycles, but eventually retired the airplane somewhere between 14,000 and 15,000 cycles. 

[AndreiC]

Well, the reason I was asking is that my "cheating eye" was caught by a 1977 J-model with 7100 hours on Jimmy Garrison's web site. The price seems great. But the hassle of selling my 1970 E-model with only 3600 hours, and paying 40 AMU difference made me think twice, and I was hoping you guys will tell me "don't buy it, it has too many hours."

 

[LANCECASPER]

22 hours ago, AndreiC said:

When looking at an airplane, how much do people weigh negatively higher airframe TT? For example, should a plane with 7000 TTAF be discounted compared to one with 3500 TTAF, all other things being equal? I know people care more about being continuously used, and a higher TTAF will be a plane which will have sat less, so that would be something in favor of a higher time plane. But at what kind of numbers does the number of hours start to weigh the price down?

It does affect the value, more so on newer airframes. As an example about three years ago Vref figured that over or under average airframe hours on an Acclaim was a $22/hr. deduct or add.  As an airframe ages the $/airframe hr goes down on that valuation, but it's still a real thing in the valuation on every airplane. Whether it matters to you or not is one thing, but it is figured in on a valuation.

[AndreiC]

1 minute ago, LANCECASPER said:

It does affect the value, more so on newer airframes. As an example about three years ago Vref figured that over or under average airframe hours on an Acclaim was a $22/hr. deduct or add.  As an airframe ages the $/airframe hr goes down on that valuation, but it's still a real thing in the valuation on every airplane. Whetehr it matters to you or not is one thing, but it is figured in on a valuation.

Interesting. What would you figure the corresponding number would be for a 1977 airframe? I know for 1970 Jimmy puts only a $3.50 per extra hour valuation, but I don't have the modern Mooney price guide to look at.

[LANCECASPER]

2 minutes ago, AndreiC said:

Interesting. What would you figure the corresponding number would be for a 1977 airframe? I know for 1970 Jimmy puts only a $3.50 per extra hour valuation, but I don't have the modern Mooney price guide to look at.

He figures 100 hours per year as the average and then on a 1977 model it adds or subtracts $4 per hour for hours outside of the average.

[DCarlton]

19 hours ago, Andy95W said:

That’s really close to my airframe time.  It flew pipeline patrol for about 10 years.

A gent used to park next to me that flew a polished C or E (don't remember) that flew pipeline or power line patrol weekly.  He flew between Carlsbad CA and El Paso down low.  Never asked how many hours he had on the airplane but it got a serious work out.  

[bluehighwayflyer]

I’m the guy who previously owned the 10,000 hour TTAF ‘78 J that Skip referenced above that Tom Rouch maintained during it’s working years as a radio station “eye in the sky” traffic spotter in the San Francisco Bay area in the 1980s.  When I bought it in 2006, I believe, it had just less than 10,000 hours TTAF and when I sold it in late 2018 it had around 10,600 hours TTAF.  It was an incredibly clean airframe that absolutely no one would know had that many hours without looking at its logbooks.  But those hours were easy loitering hours flown by professional pilots and maintained by some of the world’s best Mooney maintainers, not training and touch and go hours flown with minimalist maintenance.  The devil is in the details, but high airframe hours alone should not be of concern to the discerning Mooney buyer.  

[Justin Schmidt]

1 hour ago, 201Steve said:

As the owner of a nearly 50 year old airplane and the experience that has come with it, if I were shopping for another airplane, I would favor a newer (less old) airplane with more hours over an older airplane with less hours. 
 

Ah, the airplane experts. Banks and insurance companies. Kidding, but they use arbitrary figures as a general proxy for a lot of things. 

Just saying...you can argue to the bank they don't know anything til you're blue in the face, they still won't finance