Implications of Missing Logs

I have a few people at the airport interested in buying into a partnership in a cub (specifically Marks J3). Most of them are building RV's that have a tailwheel and would like to be tailwheel proficient when they are done with thier planes. I am putting this partnership together for the same reason until my J-5 is finished.

Anyway...back to the question. The J-3 does not have logs before 1999. What does this have on future resale? Any other thoughts?? Is anybody else flying without previous logs?


Tim

There are many aircraft flying with out complete logs. Well documented rebuild will help the end resale. But I wouldn't give a whole lot of thought to resale value. Six years of logs for 60 year old airplane isn't the best scenario but your not rebuilding it to make money. And if you keep it for ten years now you have 14 years of logs and that helps. But keep impecable logs during ownership.

Pay the measley $5 and get the cd of your records from the fed's...

Jetdoc-

Thanks for your very well thought out answer to my question, glad you took the time. I was not talking about the logs from the feds.

Tim

I paid the $5 and have the FAA logs on that plane which I am going to forward to Mark. Mostly registration changes, etc.

sj

Missing logs mean nothing to me, except when it comes to an engine. With the exception of the engine, you can verify the condition of virtually every part in the plane. The engine component times do mean something. I assume an engine that doesn't have logs to be a core, even if the seller says it was rebuilt last year.
SB

Prior to 1956 you had to submit a report every year to get a new airworthiness certificate. These reports have times and other pertinent details that might help on the history. This info along with the major repairs and alterations will be on the CD. If the airplane has been rebuilt since the logs were lost I would not worry about it. It would be more important to me on a Cessna or like A/C. There are more aircraft with stuff not in the logs that are more subject for return. Resale will be an issue for some but for people that know the planes and are looking for one it won't matter. It will be a point for them to try and get you down on the price.

Stewart:

I have complete logs for my C-90, but the whole concept is a joke. There is likely no single, major part left of the original engine. The crankshaft may be the exception, but who knows?

I've just replaced the case and accessory case. All the cylinders have been replaced at some point, likely the camshaft, pistons, rods, gears, bolts, etc.

The log covers stupid stuff like the push rod tubes, intake tubes & spider, and the oil tank, none of which really wear out. The papers have over 4100 hours on them, but the engine parts certainly don't.

The logs mean something only when you're buying or selling, so what you say about the "core" is correct, I guess. Mine was not even a decent core. I bought a crankshaft, in need of grinding. And I paid dearly for it, too!

Jon B.

Jon,
My current engines have all yellow tags and receipts stapled into the logs. These receipts tell the reader what's been done to the engine parts and who did it. The major parts are either new or recertified, and most have been brought to a higher standard than required. And it's all documented. If such tags and receipts aren't in the logs, I assume the parts are worn out. No ticky, no laundry. That's no joke.

Conversely, you can see that very nearly the entire airframe of my 12 was replaced this year, so the history of tip repairs and fabric patches in the '50s doesn't seem very important, let alone the history of float changes. Most Cubs have had repairs done that supercede 90% of what's recorded in their logs. Yet, regardless of what the logs say, I'd have my mechanic to go over everything with a critical eye before I bought a plane.
SB

Interested in partnership

Tim; Email me with some details about your partnership. I may be interested.

btracy62@msn.com