aircraft logs at purchase

How much importance is placed on detailed info entered in the aircraft log when you purchase an antique plane?

Have recently looked into a few T-crafts and the logs were incomplete- how big of a deal is it if the airplane is checked by a mechanic to be in good shape? What is considered a deal breaker? Should the price be reduced if the log books are questionable?

After a mechanic reads the logs the airplane is not as advertised.

You need to give us an example. If you have all the logs, and all the A/Ds are signed, but all you have is an annual signed off each year and no record of oil changes and tire/brake installation, you are OK, and in my opinion lots better off because you can actually find the stuff that is required to be in the logs.

There is no requirement to enter oil changes in the log - you just have to maintain a record of them somewhere for a short period of time.

bob turner said:

You need to give us an example. If you have all the logs, and all the A/Ds are signed, but all you have is an annual signed off each year and no record of oil changes and tire/brake installation, you are OK, and in my opinion lots better off because you can actually find the stuff that is required to be in the logs.

There is no requirement to enter oil changes in the log - you just have to maintain a record of them somewhere for a short period of time.

Click to expand...

One example is one airplane was supposed to have an upgrade from a 65 horse to a 75 hp (the owner had been lead to believe this had been done but only the pistons had been changed- nothing else- so it wasnt really a 75 hp

Also the engine had been overhauled about 450 hours ago but none of the log book entries contained anything about the cam being worked on- other things were listed, but the cam never mentioned- yet SMOH was indicated-

another T-craft had sealed struts but nothing was recorded in the log book to indicate the part number or strut change- so the recent strut ad is not complied with- which it could have been if the work was recorded.

I know your frustration well. I have had airplanes with incomplete logs however the pertinent things had been done since the logs were lost like engine OH and recover. I have to figure in the case you mentioned if they forgot to log the cam or didn't do anything to it, what else did they forget or overlook. Keep looking, the right one will turn up and you will feel right about it. Just do your homework.

Incomplete logbooks can be a nightmare. No matter how personable the seller is, there is no good ole' boy stuff that will get by a sharp I.A. There could be a question of who licensed the a/c last and why is it flying now?If an a/c has incomplete logs you are just buying a bunch of parts that are flying in some cases.

I don't think that is correct. Sure, complete logs with no errors are nice, but show me the 50 year old aircraft with such logs. All you need is total time, plus sign-offs for airworthiness directives. An overhaul is tricky - used to be that folks called rings and bearings an overhaul. There are more stringent requirements now, and it may be that an A&P cannot sign off an overhaul. As far as I know, there is no requirement to do anything to a camshaft at major overhaul time. The small Continental does not eat camshafts.

The conversion to A75, as I recall, was only pistons. The rest of it was different jets in the carb and a different prop, but those are accessory changes.

So you purchase the aircraft with the understanding that the overhaul is not a true overhaul, and that the strut A/D has yet to be complied with. Then you do those things correctly, and enter them in the logs. I would be willing to bet that you simply cannot find a Taylorcraft with perfect logs.

You may be able to verify the part as a PMA sealed strut. We did that on a Super Cub not so long ago, and got it in the logs (not me - another IA). Once it is so signed, it is no longer an issue.

If the basic aircraft is what you want, then negotiate. If the aircraft is really ratty, good logs should not lead you to buy it. All of this is just opinion.

I once had a aircraft dealer give me some good advice. He said to me why buy an airplane with incomplete logs or a high time fuselage when there are plenty of airplanes for sale with good logs and low time airframes.(Taylor Craft,etc.)

I had a good friend buy a Twin Comanche that all the logs where missing. The airplane however had just recieved a 50K Avionics upgrade. The rest of the evaluation was performed by a mechanic who knew twin comanches. The buyer ended up with a sweet deal and flew the plane for another 15 years.

On an overhaul the parts removed only need to meet "serviceable standards" to be reinstalled. Most folks would not re-install an almost completely worn part but it would be legal. (And an A&P can do an overhaul as long as it does not have a reduction gearbox) As far as complete logs go it is nice to have them but not necessary to evaluate the aircraft. After all, are you going to just look at the records and assume the work was done, or are you going to look at the airplane too.

Bob, A mechanic can still overhaul an engine thank goodness. There are some other parts that are required to be later style parts in the A-65 to convert to the A-75. I think the rods are one of them. As far as the cam there are dimensional requirements as well as structurally. I usually send all the internal steel out for at least a magnaflux.

I get very aggravated with the condition of some of these old airplanes and their logs. I see way too many PCW (previously complied with) without any entry as to how or when. Spending hours going through logs trying to verify an AD was complied with is not what I like doing. Then you go to the airplane and find some of the stupidest things. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, as far as I am concerned in this day and age there is no excuse for ignorance. All the different types have websites with knowledgeable people willing to help and advise. We are lucky to have a free flow of knowledge and information, some people need to take the time to use it.

Sorry for the rant and rave but I just did the paperwork for two different airplanes that had the good old boy signing them off and working on them for several years.

:evil:

I learned the truth of Grant and Steve's assessment a number of years ago, when I bought a Super Cub with a 200 hours since major overhaul engine. Unfortunately, the engine was mostly junk, and in fact, had been assembled with illegal parts, which were found when it was torn down for a REAL overhaul. Near as we could tell, the "overhauler" had (maybe) pulled a cylinder or two and looked inside and called it a major. As Grant noted, in an overhaul, parts must simply meet service limits. Theoretically, any or all of those parts could wear beyond legal service limits the next day, and everything would have still been legal. Consider the case of Alaska Airline's MD 80 which crashed off the coast of California.

On the other hand, I was then faced with the question of what to do about this engine. In the end, I had a local A & P with a really good reputation with engines to rebuild the engine--a major overhaul. He told me up front what he would do and what he wouldn't do with the engine, and I agreed. ANYTHING that looked worn was replaced. Cam and Crank went out for testing and certification. New pistons, new rods, new valves, some new cylinders, I think we re-used one cylinder. Turned out to be a great engine, and I'd go that route in a heartbeat.

Problem of course, is I paid for a 200 hour engine that was in fact junk, and had to pay for an overhaul. The good news in that case, is that Cubs were appreciating in value so fast then that I got my money back in the end, but....

If I were to buy another plane now, I'd seriously consider a plane with a TBO'd engine, find a good engine guy, and have him do the rebuild. Just pay for a run out engine. Unfortunately, a lot of folks seem to think that an airplane with a run out engine is still worth what one with a brand new engine is.

As to logbooks, I had a "responsible" shop LOSE the first logbook for my present airplane, which irritated me just a little. Be very careful about letting ANYONE keep your logbooks for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

They basically shrugged their shoulders when I pointed out the missing logbook, even though the owner of the shop knew that it had been there, cause he'd seen it and discussed it with me. Grrrrr... Hopefully, when I go to sell this plane, that missing logbook won't be a big issue, cost-wise, since it ended in 1955, and everything was referenced accurately in the next book, which I have. Now, if it'd been the LATEST logbook that was lost, or the one which contained the engine conversion, or?? Who knows.

Good luck....

MTV

Are pristine logbooks that important with regards to flying the airplane? If you can get an older airplane for less because of missing/ shaky logbooks, it might still be a deal IF the airworthiness of the airplane is not in question or can be verified and entered in the current/new logbook easily. It'll be worth less when you sell it maybe, but if you pay less going in then it's a wash. Kinda like a non-original vintage airplane or an experimental Cub (or whatever) versus a factory model.

Rooster

I think we are all agreeing here. If you have a major overhaul signed off by a shade tree mechanic, do not assume it is the equivalent of a Lycon or a factory job. Adjust your offer accordingly.

My latest overhaul will contain tags for a new crank, pistons, rings, bearings, camshaft. It will not have tags for new lifters, because I bought them before tags were things of art. And valves and cylinders are all reworked standard. Not the same as a zero time factory job, but it will go to TBO. I wouldn't expect it to be worth what a Black Mac would be. But I am not selling . . .

Low time Taylorcraft with really good logs? Dream on. Creampuff? They are out there, but you will pay a premium. Expect to do a full day's work on the logs of a 25 grand T cart, and expect to re-do a couple of those "previously complied with" A/Ds. My Super Decathlon came with the same problems, and it was a creampuff maintained by really meticulous folks. Took me a week to figure it all out and get it in one easily understood document. And there was only one STC!

With all the ADs on aftermarket engine parts I started going overboard on the engine build sheet and log book entry. I put the part number, lot number etc. fow everything along with all yellow tags or appropriate comments so somebody 25 years from now will know exactly what I did and possibly save someone a teardown to see what parts are there.

I know what you mean Bob. Used to be a good log book entry was it, now there has to be a stack of yellow tags and 8130s.

Now we need to hear from Wade - did you get a Taylorcraft?

I could go for the military version - a whole lot of fun to fly, especially if the spoilers are still hooked up. Flies a lot like a J3.

THanks guys- your answers gave me a better understanding of what these log books mean.

I could not put a deal together (yet) on that T-craft. There were a few minor things my mechanic found that needed to be changed on the airplane and then there was the strut ad issue and the ol' boy who owns it wanted to get things right with the airplane before selling it-

So at this point I'm still looking hoping a goog deal pops up locally. I appreciate the helpful answers.

I think everyone is missing a point here!! True today things have to be documented much more carefully. But 40 years ago the rules were not the same as today. An overhaul could be signed off with less oversight than is required today ! I have seen many old planes with overhauls stated as a log book entry only ! Some ran many years with no trouble, others did not. I personally got stung on a Stinson with 169 hrs. SMOH that went 10 hours and the crank broke in flight. Tore it down and found it was a log book overhaul !! The bearings were wore through the babbit into the copper shell. The other side of the coin, I have a Pacer with an overhaul that is 44 years old and it runs fine and is still passing an Annual inspection. The point here is that some of the things done years ago were acceptable and good - maybe not up to todays standards, but we can't condemn all of them because of a few bad apples.